Re: [Wikimedia-l] Underwater photos and videos / WMRS Microgrants 2014

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 15.07.2014 06:42, Milos Rancic wrote:

For the last month or so I want to share with you the initial success
of the Microgrants 2014 project of Wikimedia Serbia. However, there
are a number of stories and it was too much to me to write about all
of them at once. So, I am splitting it, which means that you can
expect more stories during the next days.

Inside of this email, first a bit about the project Microgrants, then
about the particular project.

* * *


Hi Milos,

the project sounds really cool.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] US National Archives to upload all holdings to Wikimedia Commons

[Pine W]

For those who may have missed the Signpost coverage: the US National
Archives included Wikimedia in their 2014-2016 Open Government Plan. [1]
[2] [3] According to the Signpost coverage, National Archives
Wikimedian-in-Residence Dominic McDevitt-Parks
 said that the Archives will
eventually upload all of its holdings to Commons.

According to the Archives, "The 4,000 Wikipedia articles featuring our
records received more than one billion page views in Fiscal Year 2013."

Thanks very much to the Archives and to the Wikimedia DC chapter for this
engagement.

Pine

[1]
http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/30/us-national-archives-to-upload-all-holdings-to-wikimedia-commons/
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-06-25/News_and_notes
[3] http://www.archives.gov/open/open-government-plan-3.0.pdf
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Committee

[Aaron Halfaker]

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 
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 
> 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  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 <
> > ahalfa...@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.
> > > >
> > > > 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 <
> dar...@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 <
> > > > > cfrank...@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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Committee

[Lane Rasberry]

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 
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  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 <
> ahalfa...@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.
> > >
> > > 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  >
> > > 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 <
> > > > cfrank...@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  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 c

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Committee

[Aaron Halfaker]

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  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 
> 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.
> >
> > 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 
> > 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 <
> > > cfrank...@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  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 fix

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Committee

[Nathan]

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 
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.
>
> 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 
> 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 <
> > cfrank...@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  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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Committee

[Aaron Halfaker]

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 
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 <
> cfrank...@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  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
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Committee

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

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 
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  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_recruitment&diff=9220467&oldid=9220082
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Hackathon EU 2015 Q&A session

[Quim Gil]

Hi, several organizations have expressed an interest in organizing the
Wikimedia Hackathon 2015 in Europe. We are willing to announce the selected
host at Wikimania, if possible at all.

Let's have a Q&A to help candidates preparing better proposals with less
effort.

Monday, 21 July at 16:30 UTC
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20140721T1830&p1=311&ah=1

If you want to participate, please send me an email address that you have
tested with Google Hangouts. The Q&A will be streamed and available at

https://plus.google.com/events/c0fgci542f8cn58o606gng6avio

You can also send questions before, that will be answered here and will
help improving https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Hackathons.


-- 
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Committee

[Fæ]

On 17/07/2014, Craig Franklin  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
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Committee

[Craig Franklin]

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  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_recruitment&diff=9220467&oldid=9220082
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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,