[RCom-l] The tragedy of the Commons

Wed Dec 14 16:48:18 UTC 2011

Mayo, you bring up a very good point.  I too feel that it is the minority
of editors who are at all upset with research recruitment on Wikipedia.
 Asking about research recruitment on the next editor survey seems like a
good idea.

I might also offer that the real problem here was the method of
recruitment, not recruitment itself.  This is something I hope to bring up
in our meeting.  I think that the study would have gone much more smoothly
if we had a mechanism to request the participation of individual editors
that did not appear in such a prominent place like the central notice
banner, but instead was more like a personal request to an individual.

As we consider research recruitment, I want to make sure that the
conversation is not framed around the supposition that recruitment itself
is the problem.  Instead, I think we are looking at a problem related to
the method of recruitment and ensuring that method bother editors as little
as possible.

-Aaron

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Fuster, Mayo <Mayo.Fuster at eui.eu> wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I hope you are fine.
>
> Dario I already moved in order that Goran has access to the survey.
>
> WSC your comments and suggestions seems to strongly assume that there is a
> consensus on the need to "limiting the amount of surveying that Wikimedians
> are subjected to". Which is the base for this statement?. Do we have any
> strong indicator to stand that there is too much request or that this is
> not the case?. At least on the base of Berkman episode, I would not arrive
> to that conclusion. Certainly, it does not represent my interpretation: I
> don't think in the community there is a predominance of a rejection
> attitude. To me developing research is a way to contribute and beneficial
> to Wikipedia - but again, beyond each impression on community position and
> each own personal position on this. we don't have a strong indicator or
> elaborate analysis of the approach of the community toward research.
>
> In something I think we need to reflect on is that in this stage of things
> - and from Berkman and Sarah experience- researchers can extract the
> conclusion that it is better to not get in contact with Rcom and it is
> better not to consult the community on your recruitment method -  you would
> save much more time and effort . There is something that it is not working,
> if this is the case. In this regard, I would not think in terms of how to
> control and limit the amount of research developed (also because it would
> be very very difficult) but instead value and incentive that it is done in
> a way in concordance with how Wikipedians view about how should be done (in
> terms of recruitment process, in terms of open data, in terms of assuring
> the results arrive to the community, in terms of addressing questions
> relevant for wikimedia goals, etc) and that is design in a way that could
> be as much beneficial for the community as possible.
>
> Cheers! Mayo
>
> «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
> «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»
> «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
>
> Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
>
> Fellow Berkman center for Internet and Society. Harvard University.
> Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies.
> Autonomous University of Barcelona.
> Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of
> Catalonia (UOC).
> Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation
> Ph.D European University Institute
> Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of
> California, Berkeley.
>
> E-mail: mayo.fuster at eui.eu
> E-mail: mayofm at cyber.law.harvard.edu
> Twitter/Identica: Lilaroja
> Skype: mayoneti
> Phone United States: 001 - 8576548231
> Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748
>
> Berkman Center
> 23 Everett Street, 2nd Floor
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> +1 (617) 495-7547 (Phone)
> +1 (617) 495-7641 (Fax)
>
> Personal Postal Address USA:
> The Acetarium http://www.acetarium.com/
> 265 Elm Street - 4
> Somerville, MA, USA
> 02144
> ________________________________________
> From: rcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org [
> rcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of WereSpielChequers [
> werespielchequers at gmail.com]
> Sent: 14 December 2011 16:09
> To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list
> Subject: Re: [RCom-l] The tragedy of the Commons
>
> Hi Yaroslav,
>
> While I didn't see the actual survey I'm aware that it was run. I suspect
> that the community would have little problem differentiating between a
> Wikimedian surveying a targetted group of Wikimedians on currently
> contentious matters internal to the community as opposed to an outside
> researcher surveying a large proportion of the community and perhaps asking
> questions that don't seem very relevant. Sarah's survey could have been
> done as part of an Omnibus, and I'm sure if we had an Omnibus survey it
> would be an opportunity to do a followup.
>
> Alternatively we could see it as part of my alternative option of targeted
> research - unlike the Berkman survey Sarah did her targetting in such a way
> that she wasn't blocked as spam.....
>
> WSC
>
> On 14 December 2011 14:58, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod at mccme.ru<mailto:
> putevod at mccme.ru>> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:46:48 +0000, WereSpielChequers
> <werespielchequers at gmail.com<mailto:werespielchequers at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > The controversy over Berkman is not in my view primarily a communication
> > issue and it certainly isn't about the legitimacy of that survey. I
> believe
> > that the community trusts RCom as a regulator of research to know
> whether
> > research is legitimate or not.
> >
> > A big part of the controversy is over advertising, and I'm not convinced
> > that you can design a banner ad for a third party research survey that
> > isn't seen by some as advertising for that third party. An Omnibus
> survey
> > could be a Wikimedia one and therefore I would argue an internal ad
> rather
> > than a third party one. Perhaps that isn't our only option, and maybe
> there
> > are alternative ways to solve that, one way would be to change policy to
> > allow advertising for bona fide research. But that would be a difficult
> one
> > to sell to the community, particularly on the heels of a fundraising
> drive
> > where "Wikipedia doesn't take ads" was a core message.
> >
> > The other aspect of being a regulator of research is the issue of how we
> > control the amount of research requests made to the community. To my
> mind
> > that is fundamental to what we should be doing, and it is a major reason
> > for my being on this committee.  But this is almost an opposite thought
> > process to "promoting research".
> >
> > There are two proposals that I've made as to how we do this, one would
> be
> > to contact everyone once a year with an Omnibus survey, the other rather
> > more complex one is to throttle back research surveying by volume and
> limit
> > each campaign to a small subset of the community. The two approaches can
> be
> > hybridised by rewarding institutions that collaborate by allowing them
> to
> > use our systems to approach a larger proportion of editors. One reason
> why
> > I was opposed to the Berkman survey was that it was the worst of both
> > worlds - one single research project going to all or almost all of our
> most
> > surveyed community.
> >
> > I'm not convinced that the community currently has confidence in RCom to
> > regulate the amount of research requests that wikimedians and especially
> > English language Wikipedians are exposed to. Nor am I convinced that
> > everyone on this committee regards that as our responsibility. To my
> mind
> > this gives us a couple of possibilities, one would be to try and agree a
> > mechanism for limiting the amount of surveying that Wikimedians are
> > subjected to, and then sell that to the community via a request for
> > comment. One option in any such request for comment could be for the
> > community to agree not to put any constraints on researchers, but I'd be
> > surprised if that option got consensus however strongly it was promoted
> by
> > some members of RCom. The other possibility would be to clarify that the
> > remit of this committee is to promote legitimate research by vetting
> > proposals and otherwise communicating with the community; and to inform
> the
> > community that if it wants to put constraints on legitimate researchers
> > contacting wikimedians via the site then it needs a an additional
> process
> > other than RCom.
> >
> > WereSpielChequers
> >
>
> Thanks for your ideas, which I find very much reasonable. I have an
> immediate objection though. Not all research goes through RCom, and we have
> no means to stop any single person or organization from sending a hundred
> messages to talk pages. For instance, recently it was a survey with the
> purpose of understanding the role of the female editors, or whatever the
> purpose was (It is difficult for me to find a link immediately, but it can
> be done, I guess it was run by Sarah Stierch and colleagues). They did not
> bother to go to RCom, and I could imagine what the response were if we
> demanded that for instance this survey would become part of Omnibus. Since
> it looks almost inevitable that we have to go and ask the community
> opinions at some stage, we probably also need to ask this question: Should
> every research requiring subject recruitment be regulated (reviewed) by
> RCom in advance, or may be the community (first robably of en.wp) just does
> not want any regulation of the subject recruitment.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> _______________________________________________
> RCom-l mailing list
> RCom-l at lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:RCom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RCom-l mailing list
> RCom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/rcom-l/attachments/20111214/4ec1c0b9/attachment-0001.htm 