[Wikipedia-l] Looking to interview Wikipedians

[phoebe ayers]

On 3/22/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at 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.