On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Heather Ford <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jonathan, it looks like this will be a great workshop and I think CSCW is > a great venue! but I don't think it addresses the issue unless there's > something I'm missing (like an invitation, for example! ;) I see that the > workshop is forward-facing but its aim seems to be to work with a bunch of > different communities like Reddit and GalaxyZoo. What we need are better > channels as Wikipedia researchers to communicate our needs as researchers > operating outside the WMF. And preferably in a way that doesn't require us > to have to travel to Canada to a workshop to do it! > > And, I offered it as a joke but it reminds me of a small, subtle point, I > think it would be nice if you could offer an invitation to the researchers > on this list to join the workshop and/or workshop planning when you > advertise the work you're doing on this. I know it's a wiki and anyone > could probably join, but I feel like there is enormous possibility for the > group represented here to feel involved and recognised, and I, for one, > would like to be invited sometimes.. to the fun stuff, that is, not just > the hard, arduous stuff :) > > For me, it's just a matter of bandwidth. I get a lot of personal requests for advice, pointers, data, etc from wiki-researchers. I try to answer them, but I can't personally work with every researcher who wants special access beyond public dumps, APIs, databases... or who wants an "in" on subject recruitment. I don't scale all that well :)
Plus, that's an opaque and ad-hoc process, and it doesn't contribute to the formation of public standards and guidelines that benefit other researchers. Hence, the workshop. We will try to get a bunch of researchers together in one place, figure out what their needs are, and get them involved in developing a better process for quenching their data thirst! Not sure I get your invite question, tho? Are you asking to be a co-author on our workshop proposal? ;) Best, > Heather. > > > >> >> On RCOM more generally... I think clarifying the role of the committee, >> and getting a larger and more diverse set of people involved, might help >> make RCOM work. But as Aaron can attest, it is difficult to get people to >> agree on what RCOMs role should be, let alone get them to work for RCOM. >> >> I've been involved with RCOM for a while, albeit not very actively. >> Unfortunately, I think that the fact that the only people who "review" >> requests *happen to be** WMF staffers contributes to confusion about >> RCOM's role and it's authority. IMO, if RCOM or any other subject >> recruitment review process is to succeed, we need: >> >> - more wiki-researchers who are willing to regularly participate in >> both peer review *and* in developing better process guidelines and >> standards (it's really just Aaron right now) >> - more *Wikipedians* who are willing to do the same >> - some degree of buy-in from the Wikimedia community as a whole. RCOM >> needs legitimacy. But where, and from whom? Subject recruitment is a >> global >> concern, but the proposed subject recruitment process is focused on >> en-wiki >> (mostly because that's where most of the relevant research activities >> *that >> we are aware of* are happening). How to make RCOM more global? >> >> RCOM is in a tough spot right now. We can't force researchers to submit >> their proposals, or abide by the >> suggestions/recommendations/decisions/whatever that result from their >> review. But because we *look like *an official body, it's easy to blame >> us for failing to prevent disruptive research (if you're a community >> member), for "rubber stamping" research that we like (ditto), or for >> drowning research in red tape (if you're a wiki-researcher). >> >> >> - J >> >> *we were wiki-researchers first! >> >> >> >> >>> Heather Ford >>> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme >>> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital >>> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115> >>> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17 July 2014 08:49, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, I meant the community/communities of WMF. But the authority of >>>> the community derives from WMF, which chooses to delegate such matters. I >>>> think that “advise” is a good word to use. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kerry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:* Amir E. Aharoni [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 5:37 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected]; Research into Wikimedia content and >>>> communities >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can >>>> and cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. >>>> >>>> I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The WMF shouldn't >>>> enforce anything. The community can formulate good practices for >>>> researchers and _advise_ community members not to cooperate with >>>> researchers who don't follow these practices. Not much more is needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי >>>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com >>>> “We're living in pieces, >>>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence "This page documents the >>>> process that researchers must follow before asking Wikipedia contributors >>>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and >>>> experiments." >>>> >>>> WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can and >>>> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. What WMF does own is its >>>> communication channels to me as a contributor and WMF has a right to >>>> control what occurs on those channels. Also I think WMF probably should be >>>> concerned about both its readers and its contributors being recruited >>>> through its channels (as either might be being recruited). I think this >>>> distinction should be made, e.g. >>>> >>>> "This page documents the process that researchers must follow if they >>>> wish to use Wikipedia's (WMF's?) communication channels to recruit people >>>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and >>>> experiments. Communication channels include its mailing lists, its Project >>>> pages, Talk pages, and User Talk pages [and whatever else I've forgotten]." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF means, I don’t think >>>> it’s any business of WMF’s. An example might be a researcher who wanted to >>>> contact WPians via chapters or thorgs; I would leave it for the >>>> chapter/thorg to decide if they wanted to assist the researcher via their >>>> communication channels. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course, the practical reality of it is that some researchers >>>> (oblivious of WMF’s concerns in relation to recruitment of WPians to >>>> research projects) will simply use WMF’s channels without asking nicely >>>> first. Obviously we can remove such requests on-wiki and follow up any >>>> email requests with the commentary that this was not an approved request. >>>> In my category of [whatever else I’ve forgotten], I guess there are things >>>> like Facebook groups and any other social media presence. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process to vet research >>>> surveys, I think it has to be sufficiently fast and not be overly demanding >>>> to avoid the possibility of the researcher giving up (“too hard to deal >>>> with these people”) and simply spamming email, project pages, social media >>>> in the hope of recruiting some participants regardless. That is, if we make >>>> it too slow/hard to do the right thing, we effectively encourage doing the >>>> wrong thing. Also, what value-add can we give them to reward those who do >>>> the right thing? It’s nice to have a carrot as well as a stick when it >>>> comes to onerous processes J >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do >>>> things to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make >>>> “giving back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now >>>> and again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them >>>> to be on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to >>>> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research >>>> community? Just thinking aloud here … >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kerry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >>>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Aaron >>>> Halfaker >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM >>>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new reviewers (really, >>>> coordinators). Researchers can be directed to me or Dario ( >>>> [email protected]) to be assigned a reviewer. There is also >>>> a proposed policy on enwiki that could use some eyeballs: >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21: >>>> >>>> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate RCOM, but >>>> > that's easy to say and harder to do!) >>>> >>>> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks can do is subscribing >>>> to the feed of new research pages: >>>> < >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hidebots=1&hideredirs=1&limit=500&offset=&namespace=202 >>>> > >>>> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an active community of >>>> "reviewers", than the other way round. >>>> >>>> Nemo >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan T. Morgan >> Learning Strategist >> Wikimedia Foundation >> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> >> [email protected] >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > -- Jonathan T. Morgan Learning Strategist Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
