I don't think that it is appropriate that those who benefit from deregulation (e.g. No oversight for running surveys. No formalized community review process.) make the decisions about what is worth regulating. You'll notice that the proposed policy that Poitr calls "instruction creep" basically states that you do three things:
1. Document your research. Specifically, your methods of recruitment, consent process, data storage and publication strategy. 2. Discuss your research -- with Wikipedians to make sure that you won't cause a disruption 3. Proceed as consensus emerges. We all seem to agree that this is good practice. Where is the rest of the "instruction creep"? Where is the anti-researcher bend? Poitr, you speculate about potential problems like people just coming to say "IDONTLIKEIT", but I have yet to see that happen in RCOM's process despite the fact that we invite editors from the population being sampled to the conversation. Even if it was true, I think that if some of your potential participants don't like what you are doing, you ought to address their concerns. I'm all for developing guidelines (note that Ethically researching Wikipedia IS NOT a guideline). I've wrote my fair share of essays to help researchers & Wikipedians find their way around research projects in Wikipedia. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research and and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EpochFail/Don%27t_bite_the_researchers. However, I've watched good research projects fail because researchers didn't have the wikipedian backgrounds that you guys do (Heather and Poitr). See some examples of (IRB approved) studies running into project-halting difficulties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Research#Examples_of_unmediated_interactions These examples are what got me to start working on developing a process in the first place. If you really think that documenting your research and having a discussion about it is too much instruction, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to contact Wikipedians. If you do think that every research project that does recruitment should be documented and discussed, why not just say so? -Aaron On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Heather Ford <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on Piotr's comments. > > And very, very happy to hear about > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ethically_researching_Wikipedia > -- I think this is definitely the way to go: developing guidelines that we > *regularly point people to* when they have questions etc. And maybe > something that we as a group can work on in the coming months. > > I'll reiterate my suggestions for goals here and add some of Piotr's and > others' comments: > > 1. developing ethical research guidelines for Wikipedia research > - by building on the WP:Ethically_researching_Wikipedia page and > regularly pointing people to it > > 2. finding ways of making responsible requests to the WMF for data that > they hold that might benefit research outside the WMF > - through an official process with guidelines from the WMF on response > times/ viable requests etc. > > 3. developing opportunities for researchers to collaborate and share what > they're doing with the wider research community > - reorganising the research hub and pointing to best case practices etc > (similar to the WP Global Education program, as Piotr suggests) > - actively recruiting WP researchers to join this list and visit the > research hub > - some other regular way of involving researchers such as inviting them to > showcase their work and have it recognised on the list, on the hub etc > - recognising outstanding research (through a prize perhaps as Aaron > suggested) > > Looking forward to hearing Phoebe's suggestions! > > Best, > Heather. > > > 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 29 July 2014 09:04, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The good and bad news is that the status quo with RCOM is likely to >> remain unless someone in WMF, the Board, or the community is interested >> enough in addressing the situation to put in some effort to make RCOM a >> functioning organization. >> >> At the moment I have the impression that WMF researchers are absorbing >> most of the work that RCOM and some dedicated RCOM admin support could do, >> like help with lit review and prevent outside researchers from using WMF >> databases in ways that compromise user privacy. My perception is that the >> current situation is inefficient for WMF and for outside researchers who >> want to do good work with WMF or community resources, and also that RCOM >> lacks the resources to respond in timely ways to requests for help with >> outside research that could benefit Wikimedia. So, I there are reasons to >> changs the status quo, and I hope WMF or the Board would be interested in >> something like the proposal I made previously. >> >> Phoebe, what do you think? >> >> Pine >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
