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 <l...@bluerasberry.com> 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 <ahalfa...@wikimedia.org> > 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 <nawr...@gmail.com> 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, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> 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, > > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > __________________________ > > > > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > > > > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > > > > > i centrum badawczego CROW > > > > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > > > > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > > > > > > > > > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > -- > Lane Rasberry > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia > 206.801.0814 > l...@bluerasberry.com > _______________________________________________ > 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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
