While this group is transparent, Wikipedia discussion is even more so,
and I prefer to held discussion in a more transparent venue where possible.
For those that don't want to read another site's discussion, a short
summary of my points:
* I agree that it's good to VOLUNTARILY recommend best practices as
Aaron lists in his 1-3 points
* I don't recognize RCOM's or Aaron's authority to say things like
"maybe you shouldn't be allowed to contact Wikipedians". If a
researchers violates Wikipedia rules, our regular policies enforced by
regular admin corp, plus in extreme cases potential shaming of unethical
research through publicity/contacting unethical researcher departments
should be enough.
--
Piotr Konieczny, PhD
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_…
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 <hfordsa(a)gmail.com
<mailto:hfordsa@gmail.com>> 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 <http://hblog.org/> | @hfordsa
<http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
On 29 July 2014 09:04, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com
<mailto:wiki.pine@gmail.com>> 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
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l