I don't believe there is any claim of authority for RCOM. At least I was not involved in making claims that it is required and I do not see it as such. In fact, I have argued in the past that studies run by Wikipedians won't gain much from the process[1]. However, I do recommend that academics -- especially those who do not otherwise engage with Wikipedians -- to work with an RCOM member to coordinate a review in order to ensure that you won't see massive push-back when you start recruiting on Wikipedia -- as studies tended to see when they were run before the process.
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IEG/Reimagining_Wikipedia_Mentorship#English_Wikipedia_AGAIN On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Aaron, what's the source of authority for RCOM (or its members acting > independently) to perform a review procedure and claim it is required? > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Re. RCOM and review processes, these are two different things. RCOM is >> an old, defunct WMF sanctioned working group of staff, researchers and >> Wikipedians. If we want to revive RCOM, it seems like this should be >> discussed in another thread. >> >>> >>>>> > _______________________________________________ > 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
