On Wednesday 03 June 2009, Aaron Halfaker wrote: > This proposal isn't really about the merits of any particular study. I > only offered a link to the discussions about my most recent user study > because I felt it was a good example of push-back from Wikipedia editors.
I think identifying the particular scenarios (i.e., push-back) would be a good thing within the proposal, and how the proposed solution might provide remedy. Some quick thoughts: 1. This is a challenging problem. (My experience soliciting participation for interviews on WP -- left on a Project page -- was that I got no responses! :) Leaving lots of messages on people's talk pages might have generated more attention, but obviously not all of it good. (I actually didn't make much use of interviews, and got the few I did through personal/f2f contacts rather than online solicitation.) 2. I would not call it a Wikipedia IRB. 3. I think it was reasonable for Wikipedians to object to the many dozens of messages left on User pages. 4. Katherine's messages were fairly good relative to what a IRB notice/consent form would look like, but I don't see any indication of IRB. The NICE notice could be much more specific. An example of an IRB approved solicitation I used can be seen here: http://reagle.org/joseph/2006/disp/9-consent-form.html 5. I expect that: (a) some ornery folks might always complain, even if there was consensus on a Village Research Pump, (b) the Foundation would not in any way want to indemnify the work being done by someone else. That said, anything that helps researchers develop appropriate instruments, that furthers information within the community, and that is in keeping with policy and community sensibilities is a good thing. _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
