Hi - copying this under a new subject that makes the topic more clear to anyone skimming their inbox. Beyond the edits made below to clarify the current practice, I was curious about the success and value of the RCOM in general. First, I'm not aware of how active the committee was in the past in reviewing proposals, and it's certainly possible a great deal of work was done in this area.
But reading the "charter" for the committee and looking around meta for related documentation, it appears that almost none of the elements of the charter have been accomplished. Despite this, in an e-mail last year to the RCOM list, Dario suggested that the continued operation of a membership committee was no longer a priority. (Nor has it been for some time - the last documented meeting was in 2011, the IRC channel has been mothballed, and the last monthly report [issued in 2012] is no longer even available).
I gather that individually the members of the committee have created research-related initiatives that are valuable, and that part of the impetus for this work may have been collaboration through the vehicle of the committee. However, the charter lays out some pretty worthwhile goals: policies for conflicts of interest, guidelines for recruiting subjects, a process for requesting non-public data, supporting research projects with technical resources, creating an open-access policy, releasing a "starter kit" for researchers, etc.
At least from the links within the orbit of the main RCOM page, it's not clear to me that any of these goals have been achieved or even that substantial progress has been made. If it has, then the RCOM is definitely selling itself short by not making that more public. If indeed these are all still outstanding goals, it's disappointing that the committee is basically wound up without any hope or plan or achieving them.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
To avoid confusion with researchers in the future, I've made some minor changes to the research related pages on Meta (see below). This should help ensure that outdated documentation does not cause unnecessarily delay and/or expense for those interested in doing Wikimedia-related research.
1: Posted a notice to the top of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment to the effect that RCOM no longer evaluates research projects or participates in recruiting participants, and removed the assertion that research requires approval from RCOM.
2: Updated https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ to make it clear that the WMF / RCOM does not evaluate specific research proposals or assist in recruiting, and that any researcher intending to conduct on-wiki interaction should seek approval from the local projects using whatever methods have been established locally.
3: Removed the reference to RCOM approval from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Projects
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...
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
On 17/07/2014, 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...
+1
I admit to being embarrassed over believing that RCom is the process we should officially recommend to research projects. It appears effectively non-existent and as far as I am aware Wikimedia related research that includes surveys of our users has no enforceable best practice.
Fae
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
Hey folks,
I appreciate your discussion here. However, you're unlikely to get any participation from actual wiki researchers on wikimedia-l See wiki-research-l[1], the mailing list for discussions of research. There's a thread referencing this discussion here[2]. I encourage you to continue the conversation there.
1. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l 2. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003570.html
-Aaron
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
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
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk _______________________________________________ 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.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Aaron,
Are you sure that you can't make any kind of substantive reply here on this list, for the benefit of people who have been reading about it here but aren't subscribed to the wiki-research-l list? I note that you also have not addressed any of the concerns either on your talkpage or on the other list.
Thanks, Nathan
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
I appreciate your discussion here. However, you're unlikely to get any participation from actual wiki researchers on wikimedia-l See wiki-research-l[1], the mailing list for discussions of research. There's a thread referencing this discussion here[2]. I encourage you to continue the conversation there.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003570.html
-Aaron
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
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
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk _______________________________________________ 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
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
Nathan,
I plan to address those concerns on the appropriate list. It's a public list. I'm drafting an email at the moment. If you're interested in wiki research, I encourage you to sign up to wiki-research-l. It's relatively low traffic for anyone used to wikimedia-l.
-Aaron
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Are you sure that you can't make any kind of substantive reply here on this list, for the benefit of people who have been reading about it here but aren't subscribed to the wiki-research-l list? I note that you also have not addressed any of the concerns either on your talkpage or on the other list.
Thanks, Nathan
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
I appreciate your discussion here. However, you're unlikely to get any participation from actual wiki researchers on wikimedia-l See wiki-research-l[1], the mailing list for discussions of research.
There's
a thread referencing this discussion here[2]. I encourage you to
continue
the conversation there.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003570.html
-Aaron
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
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
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk _______________________________________________ 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
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
Hello,
At Wikimania in London August 6-7 there is a research meetup. Some RCOM people will be there. < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_2014
I will be there all Thursday 7 August. Research ethics oversight is not the priority for this group and statistics seems to be, but at least I want to visit this group and see what they think.
I support Aaron and RCOM, and would prefer that no one blame either for anything. I think both are being held responsible for a lot of complicated issues that are beyond the scope of what they are empowered to cover. RCOM has some strengths and weaknesses. I wish to empower the Research Committee and make it known for its strengths, and to help it divest responsibilities for areas which it cannot manage as well and find other channels for dealing with whatever RCOM is unable to do.
Nathan, I would be willing to talk with you by phone or video sometime if you like. It is not that I want to make this private, but just that text and email are not the same as conversations with voice. I have no solutions, but at least I might be able to describe the positions of stakeholders in research, list options, and say something about what kinds of actions would be conservative and what would be radical. I wish for a bit more community participation in research oversight, but overall, I want to reduce bureaucracy and gatekeeping, and I think others may wish for this as well. Researchers are awesome and they need support.
yours,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nathan,
I plan to address those concerns on the appropriate list. It's a public list. I'm drafting an email at the moment. If you're interested in wiki research, I encourage you to sign up to wiki-research-l. It's relatively low traffic for anyone used to wikimedia-l.
-Aaron
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Are you sure that you can't make any kind of substantive reply here on
this
list, for the benefit of people who have been reading about it here but aren't subscribed to the wiki-research-l list? I note that you also have not addressed any of the concerns either on your talkpage or on the other list.
Thanks, Nathan
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Aaron Halfaker <
ahalfaker@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hey folks,
I appreciate your discussion here. However, you're unlikely to get any participation from actual wiki researchers on wikimedia-l See wiki-research-l[1], the mailing list for discussions of research.
There's
a thread referencing this discussion here[2]. I encourage you to
continue
the conversation there.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003570.html
-Aaron
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
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>
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Per directing the conversation here to wiki-research-l, I'd like to link to a post I made in the relevant thread there that describes the history of my work on subject recruitment support. See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003579.html
Per Lane's comments, I look forward to improving support and engagement with researchers and removing any suggestion of WMF control from the process. To echo Lane's assertion: *Researchers are awesome and they need support.* I'd like to add that: *Wikipedians are awesome and need to be empowered by the process.*
-Aaron
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com wrote:
Hello,
At Wikimania in London August 6-7 there is a research meetup. Some RCOM people will be there. <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_2014
I will be there all Thursday 7 August. Research ethics oversight is not the priority for this group and statistics seems to be, but at least I want to visit this group and see what they think.
I support Aaron and RCOM, and would prefer that no one blame either for anything. I think both are being held responsible for a lot of complicated issues that are beyond the scope of what they are empowered to cover. RCOM has some strengths and weaknesses. I wish to empower the Research Committee and make it known for its strengths, and to help it divest responsibilities for areas which it cannot manage as well and find other channels for dealing with whatever RCOM is unable to do.
Nathan, I would be willing to talk with you by phone or video sometime if you like. It is not that I want to make this private, but just that text and email are not the same as conversations with voice. I have no solutions, but at least I might be able to describe the positions of stakeholders in research, list options, and say something about what kinds of actions would be conservative and what would be radical. I wish for a bit more community participation in research oversight, but overall, I want to reduce bureaucracy and gatekeeping, and I think others may wish for this as well. Researchers are awesome and they need support.
yours,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nathan,
I plan to address those concerns on the appropriate list. It's a public list. I'm drafting an email at the moment. If you're interested in wiki research, I encourage you to sign up to wiki-research-l. It's relatively low traffic for anyone used to wikimedia-l.
-Aaron
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Are you sure that you can't make any kind of substantive reply here on
this
list, for the benefit of people who have been reading about it here but aren't subscribed to the wiki-research-l list? I note that you also
have
not addressed any of the concerns either on your talkpage or on the
other
list.
Thanks, Nathan
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Aaron Halfaker <
ahalfaker@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hey folks,
I appreciate your discussion here. However, you're unlikely to get
any
participation from actual wiki researchers on wikimedia-l See wiki-research-l[1], the mailing list for discussions of research.
There's
a thread referencing this discussion here[2]. I encourage you to
continue
the conversation there.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2014-July/003570.html
-Aaron
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
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>
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk _______________________________________________ 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>
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
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
-- 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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org