I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of any and all levels of experience and involvement. In-depth, one hour interviews will be conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27. Compensation for your time will be provided – a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com. Must be 18+ and U.S. resident. Contact Benjamin Johnson, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media, Michigan State University, by email at john2429@msu.edu or by phone at 517.230.1272.
Thanks! Benjamin
Sounds good.
Stephen Yeago 312 279 6769
On 3/20/07, Benjamin Keith Johnson john2429@msu.edu wrote:
I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of any and all levels of experience and involvement. In-depth, one hour interviews will be conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27. Compensation for your time will be provided – a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com. Must be 18+ and U.S. resident. Contact Benjamin Johnson, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media, Michigan State University, by email at john2429@msu.edu or by phone at 517.230.1272.
Thanks! Benjamin
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, It sounds good only when the bias towards Wikipedia and the US is intentional. It sounds good when it will be explicitly mentioned it the paper that is to be produced as a result. This paper will not reflect Wikipedia not even the English version of it. Thanks, GerardM
Steve schreef:
Sounds good.
Stephen Yeago 312 279 6769
On 3/20/07, Benjamin Keith Johnson john2429@msu.edu wrote:
I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of any and all levels of experience and involvement. In-depth, one hour interviews will be conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27. Compensation for your time will be provided – a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com. Must be 18+ and U.S. resident. Contact Benjamin Johnson, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media, Michigan State University, by email at john2429@msu.edu or by phone at 517.230.1272.
Thanks! Benjamin
It sounds good only when the bias towards Wikipedia and the US is intentional.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bias towards Wikipedia". The apparent US bias is unfortunate, though. He doesn't say what he's doing the interviews for - if the subject matter is specific to the US, then it would make sense to only interview US Wikipedians.
Hoi, Please quote correctly; what I wrote was "bias towards Wikipedia and the US". For the rest you repeat after me.
US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated with small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover all subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done for does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
Thomas Dalton schreef:
It sounds good only when the bias towards Wikipedia and the US is intentional.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bias towards Wikipedia". The apparent US bias is unfortunate, though. He doesn't say what he's doing the interviews for - if the subject matter is specific to the US, then it would make sense to only interview US Wikipedians.
Please quote correctly; what I wrote was "bias towards Wikipedia and the US". For the rest you repeat after me.
Ah, I put the pauses in the wrong place. I read it as "bias towards Wikipedia and bias towards the US", you meant "bias towards (Wikipedia and the US)". Makes more sense now, thanks.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated with small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover all subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done for does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
He doesn't claim to be attempting to cover the breadth of Wikipedia. Implicit in the post is that it concerns Wikipedia usage in the United States.
I find it is common for people to mistake limits placed on a study with a bias in the study. Let me give another example that might make this clearer. If a study concerns left handed people (one of the most commonly studied groups) then failing to include non-left handed people is not a bias in the study, it is a function of the limits of a study. Similarly if a study wanted only left handed US residents then the study would be about left handed US residents. This does not imply any bias in the study. Any study worthy of the name will go in to great detail when it comes to methodology of subject selection and any subsequent testing that is done.
It will be great when smaller WP communities are studied too but this study clearly isn't doing that.
Cheers,
Rob
Hoi, Given that the argument why only American people were included was the cost of international telephony, your argument sucks. By restricting the study to the United States it is explicitly about Wikipedia usage in the United States. When you want to come to a conclusion on any subject with respect to policies in the English language Wikipedia, the result will not reflect how this project works.
When you study left handed people, you will find only what is only true to left handed people by comparing the results to right handed people. Thanks, GerardM
Robert Brockway schreef:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated with small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover all subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done for does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
He doesn't claim to be attempting to cover the breadth of Wikipedia. Implicit in the post is that it concerns Wikipedia usage in the United States.
I find it is common for people to mistake limits placed on a study with a bias in the study. Let me give another example that might make this clearer. If a study concerns left handed people (one of the most commonly studied groups) then failing to include non-left handed people is not a bias in the study, it is a function of the limits of a study. Similarly if a study wanted only left handed US residents then the study would be about left handed US residents. This does not imply any bias in the study. Any study worthy of the name will go in to great detail when it comes to methodology of subject selection and any subsequent testing that is done.
It will be great when smaller WP communities are studied too but this study clearly isn't doing that.
Cheers,
Rob
By golly I suppose you'd better just call Michigan State University and tell them the bad news.
Surely, when they read this INTERNET CONVERSATION they will surely see their folly in conducting this study. Gerard I think you'd better contact Harvard, too. Keeping your great wisdom from them is inhumane.
-S
On 3/21/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Given that the argument why only American people were included was the cost of international telephony, your argument sucks. By restricting the study to the United States it is explicitly about Wikipedia usage in the United States. When you want to come to a conclusion on any subject with respect to policies in the English language Wikipedia, the result will not reflect how this project works.
When you study left handed people, you will find only what is only true to left handed people by comparing the results to right handed people. Thanks, GerardM
Robert Brockway schreef:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated with small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover all subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done for does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
He doesn't claim to be attempting to cover the breadth of Wikipedia. Implicit in the post is that it concerns Wikipedia usage in the United States.
I find it is common for people to mistake limits placed on a study with a bias in the study. Let me give another example that might make this clearer. If a study concerns left handed people (one of the most commonly studied groups) then failing to include non-left handed people is not a bias in the study, it is a function of the limits of a study. Similarly if a study wanted only left handed US residents then the study would be about left handed US residents. This does not imply any bias in the study. Any study worthy of the name will go in to great detail when it comes to methodology of subject selection and any subsequent testing that is done.
It will be great when smaller WP communities are studied too but this study clearly isn't doing that.
Cheers,
Rob
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, Steve please tell me /why /I am wrong in stead of resorting to a personal attack, not nice.
Thanks, for your recommendation to Harvard. However, given that I am of an age that working is more likely than studying, I hope that your recommendation is also good for Google.. :)
Thanks, GerardM
Steve schreef:
By golly I suppose you'd better just call Michigan State University and tell them the bad news.
Surely, when they read this INTERNET CONVERSATION they will surely see their folly in conducting this study. Gerard I think you'd better contact Harvard, too. Keeping your great wisdom from them is inhumane.
-S
On 3/21/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Given that the argument why only American people were included was the cost of international telephony, your argument sucks. By restricting the study to the United States it is explicitly about Wikipedia usage in the United States. When you want to come to a conclusion on any subject with respect to policies in the English language Wikipedia, the result will not reflect how this project works.
When you study left handed people, you will find only what is only true to left handed people by comparing the results to right handed people. Thanks, GerardM
Robert Brockway schreef:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated with small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover all subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done for does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
He doesn't claim to be attempting to cover the breadth of Wikipedia. Implicit in the post is that it concerns Wikipedia usage in the United States.
I find it is common for people to mistake limits placed on a study with a bias in the study. Let me give another example that might make this clearer. If a study concerns left handed people (one of the most commonly studied groups) then failing to include non-left handed people is not a bias in the study, it is a function of the limits of a study. Similarly if a study wanted only left handed US residents then the study would be about left handed US residents. This does not imply any bias in the study. Any study worthy of the name will go in to great detail when it comes to methodology of subject selection and any subsequent testing that is done.
It will be great when smaller WP communities are studied too but this study clearly isn't doing that.
Cheers,
Rob
Sure, Gerard. =)
I don't think either of us know enough about the study to make long guesses/judgments about its methods. While I definitely think the points you make are valid and better than most, whether or not it applies to this study remains to be seen. While WP-l is a good place to get into lengthy debates, its all premature.
Until of course we see the study cited in the Washington Post. Then we'll all get together and talk about what a bunch of lies it is. =)
-Steve
On 3/21/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Steve please tell me /why /I am wrong in stead of resorting to a personal attack, not nice.
Thanks, for your recommendation to Harvard. However, given that I am of an age that working is more likely than studying, I hope that your recommendation is also good for Google.. :)
Thanks, GerardM
Steve schreef:
By golly I suppose you'd better just call Michigan State University and tell them the bad news.
Surely, when they read this INTERNET CONVERSATION they will surely see their folly in conducting this study. Gerard I think you'd better contact Harvard, too. Keeping your great wisdom from them is inhumane.
-S
On 3/21/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Given that the argument why only American people were included was the cost of international telephony, your argument sucks. By restricting the study to the United States it is explicitly about Wikipedia usage in the United States. When you want to come to a conclusion on any subject with respect to policies in the English language Wikipedia, the result will not reflect how this project works.
When you study left handed people, you will find only what is only true to left handed people by comparing the results to right handed people. Thanks, GerardM
Robert Brockway schreef:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated with small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover all subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done for does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
He doesn't claim to be attempting to cover the breadth of Wikipedia. Implicit in the post is that it concerns Wikipedia usage in the United States.
I find it is common for people to mistake limits placed on a study with a bias in the study. Let me give another example that might make this clearer. If a study concerns left handed people (one of the most commonly studied groups) then failing to include non-left handed people is not a bias in the study, it is a function of the limits of a study. Similarly if a study wanted only left handed US residents then the study would be about left handed US residents. This does not imply any bias in the study. Any study worthy of the name will go in to great detail when it comes to methodology of subject selection and any subsequent testing that is done.
It will be great when smaller WP communities are studied too but this study clearly isn't doing that.
Cheers,
Rob
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider it a bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the chance to do so.
When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is much better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads to better science.
If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a large ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.
Thanks, Gerard
On 3/21/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, Gerard. =)
I don't think either of us know enough about the study to make long guesses/judgments about its methods. While I definitely think the points you make are valid and better than most, whether or not it applies to this study remains to be seen. While WP-l is a good place to get into lengthy debates, its all premature.
Until of course we see the study cited in the Washington Post. Then we'll all get together and talk about what a bunch of lies it is. =)
-Steve
On 3/21/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Steve please tell me /why /I am wrong in stead of resorting to a personal attack, not nice.
Thanks, for your recommendation to Harvard. However, given that I am of an age that working is more likely than studying, I hope that your recommendation is also good for Google.. :)
Thanks, GerardM
Steve schreef:
By golly I suppose you'd better just call Michigan State University and tell them the bad news.
Surely, when they read this INTERNET CONVERSATION they will surely see their folly in conducting this study. Gerard I think you'd better contact Harvard, too. Keeping your great wisdom from them is inhumane.
-S
On 3/21/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Given that the argument why only American people were included was
the
cost of international telephony, your argument sucks. By restricting
the
study to the United States it is explicitly about Wikipedia usage in
the
United States. When you want to come to a conclusion on any subject
with
respect to policies in the English language Wikipedia, the result
will
not reflect how this project works.
When you study left handed people, you will find only what is only
true
to left handed people by comparing the results to right handed
people.
Thanks, GerardM
Robert Brockway schreef:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated
with
small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover
all
subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done
for
does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
He doesn't claim to be attempting to cover the breadth of Wikipedia. Implicit in the post is that it concerns Wikipedia usage in the
United
States.
I find it is common for people to mistake limits placed on a study
with a
bias in the study. Let me give another example that might make this clearer. If a study concerns left handed people (one of the most
commonly
studied groups) then failing to include non-left handed people is
not a
bias in the study, it is a function of the limits of a
study. Similarly
if a study wanted only left handed US residents then the study would
be
about left handed US residents. This does not imply any bias in the study. Any study worthy of the name will go in to great detail when
it
comes to methodology of subject selection and any subsequent testing
that
is done.
It will be great when smaller WP communities are studied too but
this
study clearly isn't doing that.
Cheers,
Rob
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 3/22/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider it a bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the chance to do so.
When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is much better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads to better science.
If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a large ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.
Thanks, Gerard
Gerard and all,
There is certainly more than one study that can and should be done. I for one would welcome *any* more data about Wikipedia contributors, even if it was limited to Wikipedia contributors living in Dubuque, Iowa between 2004 and 2005, so long as that limitation was taken into account and made clear in the study. There is no such thing as "the perfect study," and I am sure that you will agree that not all ex-pat or non-US English-language perspectives are the same either. Generalizing about all "wikipedia contributors" based on *any* cross section of the data will likely be flawed.
I think what this points to is that we simply need more good, rigorous studies of contributors. I am glad that this researcher made his IRB-imposed and methodological limits clear up front, rather than so many projects which simply say "we're studying Wikipedia contributors" -- and I am glad that contributors to this list and others are willing to share ideas and experience to help make research projects better. I think he and others have probably realized after this thread that the more information you can provide about your study, the better :) However, let's not acquire a reputation of flaming any research project that gets proposed.
-- phoebe
p.s. Mr. Johnson noted on the research-l list that the US constraint was an IRB requirement. For those who are not familiar with the concept of an [[Institutional Review Board]]... the requirements set by an IRB are generally not optional, if you want to do your study on university time with university money, and/or get it published anywhere. You can try as a researcher to get the IRB to make another decision about the constraints they set on your particular study ... but if they don't agree then you are pretty much out of luck. The IRB is free to say things like US-based contributors only, or you have to take particular privacy measures for people's data, or you have to hop on your left foot in circles while doing interviews, and you pretty much have to go with it.
On 3/22/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider it a bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the chance to do so.
When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is much better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads to better science.
If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a large ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.
Thanks, Gerard
Calling a study "a bunch of lies" before it's even been carried out is very bad faith. It's absolutely fine to question methodology - but we need to be friendly as well as critical - and I hope Benjamin has been inspired rather than turned off by the many comments and questions on these lists. I've been meaning to comment myself, but Phoebe's just said pretty much everything I was going to say. :-)
Cheers, Cormac
Werd.
On 3/22/07, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
Calling a study "a bunch of lies" before it's even been carried out is very bad faith. It's absolutely fine to question methodology - but we need to be friendly as well as critical - and I hope Benjamin has been inspired rather than turned off by the many comments and questions on these lists. I've been meaning to comment myself, but Phoebe's just said pretty much everything I was going to say. :-)
Cheers, Cormac
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi Cormac, I totally agree. Please read what I reply to; my answer indicates that we are to blame ourselves when we "call it a bunch of lies" when we do not discuss methodology when we have a chance. I hope that you will find that I have questioned why the interviews are to be limited to US American residents only. I also hope you will find that I have indicated why cost is not the factor that was suggested.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/22/07, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider
it a
bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the chance to do so.
When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is
much
better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads
to
better science.
If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a
large
ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.
Thanks, Gerard
Calling a study "a bunch of lies" before it's even been carried out is very bad faith. It's absolutely fine to question methodology - but we need to be friendly as well as critical - and I hope Benjamin has been inspired rather than turned off by the many comments and questions on these lists. I've been meaning to comment myself, but Phoebe's just said pretty much everything I was going to say. :-)
Cheers, Cormac
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Thanks Gerard.
I absolutely understand your questions are intended as good faith ones - but I still don't think it's fair to suggest that this study might be (perceived as) a bunch of lies. The study will only aspire to be a study of American Wikipedians - and it could be a very interesting one within those imposed limitations. An essential part of research is to be open and honest about the decisions taken and the limitations these bring, rather than trying to cover them up. (I'm not saying here that human-subject research methodology can't ever be discussed and improved, but I *am* saying that it's never completely bias-free.)
Cheers, Cormac
On 3/22/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi Cormac, I totally agree. Please read what I reply to; my answer indicates that we are to blame ourselves when we "call it a bunch of lies" when we do not discuss methodology when we have a chance. I hope that you will find that I have questioned why the interviews are to be limited to US American residents only. I also hope you will find that I have indicated why cost is not the factor that was suggested.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/22/07, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider
it a
bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the chance to do so.
When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is
much
better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads
to
better science.
If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a
large
ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.
Thanks, Gerard
Calling a study "a bunch of lies" before it's even been carried out is very bad faith. It's absolutely fine to question methodology - but we need to be friendly as well as critical - and I hope Benjamin has been inspired rather than turned off by the many comments and questions on these lists. I've been meaning to comment myself, but Phoebe's just said pretty much everything I was going to say. :-)
Cheers, Cormac
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The rules for trans-border data flow are getting successively more complicated; there is good reason to conduct a study within a single country, and for an IRB to require it. In any case, as I see it, a study on how US and nonUS contributors to the en WP perceived the differences between the two groups would be a good separate topic, quite complicated enough for a study of its own. DGG
On 3/22/07, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Gerard.
I absolutely understand your questions are intended as good faith ones
- but I still don't think it's fair to suggest that this study might
be (perceived as) a bunch of lies. The study will only aspire to be a study of American Wikipedians - and it could be a very interesting one within those imposed limitations. An essential part of research is to be open and honest about the decisions taken and the limitations these bring, rather than trying to cover them up. (I'm not saying here that human-subject research methodology can't ever be discussed and improved, but I *am* saying that it's never completely bias-free.)
Cheers, Cormac
On 3/22/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi Cormac, I totally agree. Please read what I reply to; my answer indicates that we are to blame ourselves when we "call it a bunch of lies" when we do not discuss methodology when we have a chance. I hope that you will find that I have questioned why the interviews are to be limited to US American residents only. I also hope you will find that I have indicated why cost is not the factor that was suggested.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/22/07, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider
it a
bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the chance to do so.
When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is
much
better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads
to
better science.
If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a
large
ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.
Thanks, Gerard
Calling a study "a bunch of lies" before it's even been carried out is very bad faith. It's absolutely fine to question methodology - but we need to be friendly as well as critical - and I hope Benjamin has been inspired rather than turned off by the many comments and questions on these lists. I've been meaning to comment myself, but Phoebe's just said pretty much everything I was going to say. :-)
Cheers, Cormac
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Gee did I just do that?
Woops.
-S
On 3/20/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good.
Stephen Yeago 312 279 6769
On 3/20/07, Benjamin Keith Johnson john2429@msu.edu wrote:
I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of any and all levels of experience and involvement. In-depth, one hour interviews will be conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27. Compensation for your time will be provided – a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com. Must be 18+ and U.S. resident. Contact Benjamin Johnson, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media, Michigan State University, by email at john2429@msu.edu or by phone at 517.230.1272.
Thanks! Benjamin
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I'm just a poor Indian. Could I change my domicile to claim that $10 gift certificate :-) FN
On 20/03/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Gee did I just do that?
Woops.
-S
On 3/20/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good.
Stephen Yeago 312 279 6769
On 3/20/07, Benjamin Keith Johnson john2429@msu.edu wrote:
I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of any and all levels of experience and involvement. In-depth, one hour interviews will be conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27. Compensation for your time will be provided – a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com. Must be 18+ and U.S. resident. Contact Benjamin Johnson, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media, Michigan State University, by email at john2429@msu.edu or by phone at 517.230.1272.
Thanks! Benjamin
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
You might want to send this over to Wiki-research-l as well ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l). There's been a few projects to interview Wikipedia contributors in the past and people may have ideas and questions. In addition, I and no doubt others from that list would be interested in your methodology, why contributors must be a U.S. resident, what you're trying to find out, and all those other pesky research questions :)
cheers, phoebe
On 3/20/07, Benjamin Keith Johnson john2429@msu.edu wrote:
I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of any and all levels of experience and involvement. In-depth, one hour interviews will be conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27. Compensation for your time will be provided – a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com. Must be 18+ and U.S. resident. Contact Benjamin Johnson, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media, Michigan State University, by email at john2429@msu.edu or by phone at 517.230.1272.
Thanks! Benjamin
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Benjamin Keith Johnson wrote:
I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of any and all levels of experience and involvement. In-depth, one hour interviews will be conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27. Compensation for your time will be provided – a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com. Must be 18+ and U.S. resident.
How would you like to verify my age? Oh, you want me to send credit card info? Billing zip code? CCV digits? Birth certificate? SSN?
Studies like these are a nightmare to set up.
-Bop
Sorry, I'm from Singapore, and I'm a minor, so count me out.
On 3/22/07, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Benjamin Keith Johnson wrote:
I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of any and all levels of experience and involvement. In-depth, one hour interviews will be conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27. Compensation for your time will be provided – a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com. Must be 18+ and U.S. resident.
How would you like to verify my age? Oh, you want me to send credit card info? Billing zip code? CCV digits? Birth certificate? SSN?
Studies like these are a nightmare to set up.
-Bop _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hmm... nope. Wasn't like that at all.
-S
On 3/22/07, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Benjamin Keith Johnson wrote:
How would you like to verify my age? Oh, you want me to send credit card info? Billing zip code? CCV digits? Birth certificate? SSN?
Studies like these are a nightmare to set up.
-Bop _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org