Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
+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 wiki.p...@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] this month's research newsletter
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Edward Saperia e...@wikimanialondon.org wrote: On 2 July 2014 15:37, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: I feel like that might be a bit short-notice - papers need to be submitted, reviewed or voted on, so on and so forth. But it could be lovely to have a 'best presentation' award for WM itself! Well, we could pick from things featured in the research newsletter, for example? How do you imagine the winner to be chosen? We can always do something more structured for next year. But this might be a good way to launch the idea of a research award. Ed Not an award, but it seems worth mentioning https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_State_of_Wikimedia_Scholarship_2013-2014 here ... (Anyone who is going to be in London and has ideas or feedback about the newsletter: don't hesitate to say hi ;) On 2 July 2014 10:33, Edward Saperia e...@wikimanialondon.org wrote: I really like the idea of some kind of annual award. If someone puts it together before Wikimania, I can put it into the closing ceremony? Edward Saperia Conference Director Wikimania London email • facebook • twitter • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG On 2 July 2014 10:15, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com wrote: Given that it seems we agree with Poitr's desire for research about Wikipedia to lead to useful tools an insights that can be directly applied to making Wikipedia and other wikis better, what might be a more effective strategy for encouraging researchers to engage with us or at least release their work in forms that we can more easily work with? Here's a couple of half-baked ideas: Wiki research impact task force -- contacts authors to encourage them to release code/datasets/etc. and praise them publicly when they do -- could be part of the work of newsletter reviewers. There are many researchers on this list who work directly with Wikimedians to make sure that their research has direct impact and their awesomeness is worth our appreciation and public recognition. Yearly research award -- for the most directly impactful research projects/researchers similar to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award. One of the focuses of the judging could be the direct impact that the work has had. -Aaron On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Heather Ford hfor...@gmail.com wrote: Apologies. You're right, Han-Teng. The reviewer looks to be Piotr Konieczny who I think is on this mailing list? Heather Ford Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group http://hblog.org | @hfordsa On 2 July 2014 12:58, h hant...@gmail.com wrote: Heather, I am not sure who contribute that. Probably not Nemo. If this issue of newsletter is correctly attributed, the contributors include: Taha Yasseri, Maximilian Klein, Piotr Konieczny, Kim Osman, and Tilman Bayer. My suggestion is only a personal one, and I am not sure if it is against policies to make a few edits once the newsletter is out. Thanks again to the contributors of the newsletter, my life is a bit easier and more interesting because of your work. 2014-07-02 15:35 GMT+07:00 Heather Ford hfor...@gmail.com: +1 Thanks for your really thoughtful comments, Joe, Han-Teng. Nemo, would you be willing to add a note to the review and/or contacting the researcher? Best, Heather. Heather Ford Oxford Internet Institute Doctoral Programme EthnographyMatters | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group http://hblog.org | @hfordsa On 2 July 2014 05:17, h hant...@gmail.com wrote: The tone of the sentence in question 'it is disappointing that the main purpose appears to be completing a thesis, with little thought to actually improving Wikipedia' could have been written as 'It would be more useful for the Wikipedia community of practice if the author discussed or even spelled out the implications of the research for improving Wikipedia. This suggestion is based on my own impression that [Wiki-research-l] has mainly two groups of readers: community of practice and community of knowledge. It is okay to have some group tensions for creative/critical inputs. Still, a neutral tone is better for assessment, and an encouraging tone might work a bit better to encourage others to fill the *gaps* (both practice and knowledge ones). Also, the factors such as originally intended audience and word limits may determine how much a writer can do for *due weight* (similar to [[WP:due]]). If the original (academic) author failed to address the implications for practices satisfactory, a research newsletter contributor can point out what s/he thinks the potential/actual implications are. (My thanks to the research newsletter's voluntary contributors for their unpaid work!) While I understand that the monthly research newsletter has its own
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
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 aaron.halfa...@gmail.com 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 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
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 nawr...@gmail.com 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 aaron.halfa...@gmail.com 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 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
Thanks. Can you explain why you continue to solicit submissions for your review, and promise a 1-2 week turn around time, when it appears that the review process rarely occurs and many (if not most) submissions are not reviewed? On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com wrote: 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 nawr...@gmail.com 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 aaron.halfa...@gmail.com 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 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
The review process occurs in all instances where review coordination is requested (by emailing me or DarTar). There's only been one case where a review took more than 2 weeks and that was because the researcher didn't respond to requests for more information quickly. Nathan, I think you are mistakenly thinking that all research needs to be reviewed. Only research that involves the recruitment of Wikipedians as subjects is intended to be reviewed via RCOM's process. Only those studies that request it will be reviewed. -Aaron On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks. Can you explain why you continue to solicit submissions for your review, and promise a 1-2 week turn around time, when it appears that the review process rarely occurs and many (if not most) submissions are not reviewed? On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com wrote: 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 nawr...@gmail.com 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 aaron.halfa...@gmail.com 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 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com wrote: The review process occurs in all instances where review coordination is requested (by emailing me or DarTar). There's only been one case where a review took more than 2 weeks and that was because the researcher didn't respond to requests for more information quickly. Nathan, I think you are mistakenly thinking that all research needs to be reviewed. Only research that involves the recruitment of Wikipedians as subjects is intended to be reviewed via RCOM's process. Only those studies that request it will be reviewed. -Aaron Thanks, perhaps the confusion exists because there is so much apparent infrastructure around the review process (including a big button that creates a research project page, ostensibly to facilitate a review). It might also be that communication from the former RCOM's members is misleading; in one e-mail in this thread you say RCOM is defunct, and in another you suggest that research recruiting Wikipedians needs RCOM's review. Either there is an RCOM and it functions effectively, or nothing should or must rely on a defunct committee to complete a defunct process. If the committee is indeed defunct, then messaging around the review process should be adjusted to make it clear that it is voluntary, and there are only two reviewers acting on their own initiative. Your insistence on having it both ways is leading to confusion, not just from me but on the part of people proposing research projects and expecting comment from RCOM. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
RCOM is not functioning as a complete group anymore. However, we split into sub-committees while we were still a functioning group. The subject recruitment sub-committee and newsletter sub-committees are performing vital functions still. I never stated that research recruiting needs RCOM approval. I definitely said that it ought to have RCOM approval. There are also more than two review coordinators (not not reviewers) -- it's just that DarTar and I have accepted the burden of distributing work. When people are busy, we often coordinate the reviews ourselves. I welcome your edits to make it clear that review is optional. As you might imagine, I have plenty of work to do and I appreciate your good-faith collaboration on improving our research documentation. -Aaron On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com wrote: The review process occurs in all instances where review coordination is requested (by emailing me or DarTar). There's only been one case where a review took more than 2 weeks and that was because the researcher didn't respond to requests for more information quickly. Nathan, I think you are mistakenly thinking that all research needs to be reviewed. Only research that involves the recruitment of Wikipedians as subjects is intended to be reviewed via RCOM's process. Only those studies that request it will be reviewed. -Aaron Thanks, perhaps the confusion exists because there is so much apparent infrastructure around the review process (including a big button that creates a research project page, ostensibly to facilitate a review). It might also be that communication from the former RCOM's members is misleading; in one e-mail in this thread you say RCOM is defunct, and in another you suggest that research recruiting Wikipedians needs RCOM's review. Either there is an RCOM and it functions effectively, or nothing should or must rely on a defunct committee to complete a defunct process. If the committee is indeed defunct, then messaging around the review process should be adjusted to make it clear that it is voluntary, and there are only two reviewers acting on their own initiative. Your insistence on having it both ways is leading to confusion, not just from me but on the part of people proposing research projects and expecting comment from RCOM. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com wrote: RCOM is not functioning as a complete group anymore. I'm a little confused why this wasn't made clear right at the beginning of this thread e.g. when others suggested this might be the case and you refuted them? Also, I'm not sure what 'functioning as a complete group' actually means. Either its functioning or its not, surely? However, we split into sub-committees while we were still a functioning group. The subject recruitment sub-committee and newsletter sub-committees are performing vital functions still. I never stated that research recruiting needs RCOM approval. I definitely said that it ought to have RCOM approval. So, does that mean that is what the policy *ought to* be now? And do you believe that this should this be the way that the policy gets decided? Because it isn't right now as far as I can see. As Kerry noted earlier on, the policy as it stands [1] says that researchers must obtain approval through the process described. If the wording now needs to be changed to ought to then surely this requires more consensus than your single message here? re. the comment that I (and the other researchers?) on this list shouldn't be the ones to decide what the regulation should be, I disagree on two counts. a) It seems on the one hand that you want this to be self-regulation i.e. you invited researchers on this list to join R-COM at the beginning of this thread, but that you don't think that the researchers here should be able to determine what to regulate. I know that you're looking for an inclusive process but you can't have it both ways: if we are going to help regulate, then we need to at least help decide how to regulate. b) Pine suggested a board decision on this earlier one to obtain clarity and I supported this but it was met with silence, which is why I followed up. There are also more than two review coordinators (not not reviewers) -- it's just that DarTar and I have accepted the burden of distributing work. When people are busy, we often coordinate the reviews ourselves. I can understand your frustration; I really can! I know that you've done a lot of really great, prior work on this and I don't think any of us are saying that we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But what is clear is that clarification is required - especially on the distribution of tasks between Foundation employees, the research community and Wikimedia editors. And this is *especially* true for people outside this list. I welcome your edits to make it clear that review is optional. As you might imagine, I have plenty of work to do and I appreciate your good-faith collaboration on improving our research documentation. I'm frustrated by this response. If the policy is incorrectly described on the policy pages, then someone from RCom (or whatever it is now called) should be the one to change this - preferably with some discussion. I find it frustrating that WMF employees are often the ones who make the final policy pronouncements but then tell others to implement it. And if we don't do the work, then we're apparently not assuming good faith. This is a great opportunity to rejuvenate the process; hopefully it will eventually be seen that way :) Best, Heather. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment -Aaron ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
Either [RCOM is] functioning or its not, surely? Well, I explained that there are functioning sub-committees still. In other words, there are initiatives that RCOM started that are alive and successful, but we no longer coordinate as a larger group. I don't know how else to explain it. I guess you could say that RCOM is still functioning and that we no longer require/engage in group meetings. As Kerry noted earlier on, the policy as it stands [1] says that researchers must obtain approval through the process described. If the wording now needs to be changed to ought to then surely this requires more consensus than your single message here? That's a proposed policy. Until it is passed by consensus, the must is a proposed term. I think that it should be must, but until that consensus is reached, I'll continue to say that it ought to. Regarding researchers stating what should be regulated, I think there is a big difference between *deciding what should be regulated* and *being involved in the discussion of *how* it should be regulated*. Hence why I welcome participation. What I'm saying is that you have a vested interest in not being regulated, but I'd still like to discuss how your activities can be regulated effectively efficiently. Does that make sense? b) Pine suggested a board decision on this earlier one to obtain clarity and I supported this but it was met with silence, which is why I followed up. I welcome you to raise it to them. I don't think it is worth their time, but they might disagree. But what is clear is that clarification is required - especially on the distribution of tasks between Foundation employees, the research community and Wikimedia editors. And this is *especially* true for people outside this list. I think that the proposed policy on English Wikipedia does that quite well. That's why I directed people there. Also, again, I am not working on RCOM or subject recruitment as a WMF employee. I do this in my volunteer time. This is true of all of RCOM who happen to also be staff. if you want process to be more clearly documented, you also have to address people like Poitr who would rather not have processes described in detail. When you guys work out how clearly you want a process to be described, please let me know. I'm tired of re-spec'ing processes. This is the third iteration. If the policy is incorrectly described on the policy pages, then someone from RCom (or whatever it is now called) should be the one to change this - preferably with some discussion. Heather, that is a *proposed *policy page on English Wikipedia. It is not part of RCOM. It would render RCOM irrelevant for subject recruitment concerns. That's why I started it. I don't think that RCOM/WMF/researchers should own subject recruitment review. I think the community being studied should own it and that RCOM/WMF/researchers should participate. Also, I am not your employee. This is my volunteer time. I don't have much of it, so I focus on keeping the system running -- and it is -- and improving the system -- which is the proposal I linked to. If you want something done and other volunteers don't have time to do it. Do it yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFIXIT -Aaron On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Heather Ford hfor...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com wrote: RCOM is not functioning as a complete group anymore. I'm a little confused why this wasn't made clear right at the beginning of this thread e.g. when others suggested this might be the case and you refuted them? Also, I'm not sure what 'functioning as a complete group' actually means. Either its functioning or its not, surely? However, we split into sub-committees while we were still a functioning group. The subject recruitment sub-committee and newsletter sub-committees are performing vital functions still. I never stated that research recruiting needs RCOM approval. I definitely said that it ought to have RCOM approval. So, does that mean that is what the policy *ought to* be now? And do you believe that this should this be the way that the policy gets decided? Because it isn't right now as far as I can see. As Kerry noted earlier on, the policy as it stands [1] says that researchers must obtain approval through the process described. If the wording now needs to be changed to ought to then surely this requires more consensus than your single message here? re. the comment that I (and the other researchers?) on this list shouldn't be the ones to decide what the regulation should be, I disagree on two counts. a) It seems on the one hand that you want this to be self-regulation i.e. you invited researchers on this list to join R-COM at the beginning of this thread, but that you don't think that the researchers here should be able to determine what to regulate. I know that you're looking for an
[Wiki-research-l] File your Wiki Research ideas -- hackathon imminent
The wiki-research hackathon is just a week away. We have 5 idea-pages started. Make sure to file yours before the event starts. *Hackathon info:* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_2014 *Submit your ideas here: *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas *Current project ideas ...* *At a glance:* *1. Public quer**y interface for Labs * *2. Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality changes * *3. First edits for male and female newcomers * 4. Editor profiles and interactions *5. WikiCredit: Measuring value added to Wikipedia * *With more info: * *1. Public query interface for Labs *( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Public_query_interface_for_Labs ) The MySQL databases available on labs have a sanitized, up to date copy of all the Wiki's databases. This is incredibly useful for researchers. The goal of this project is to make an easy to use, web-based querying interface for researchers to run queries against Labs databases. *2. Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality changes **(* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Screening_WikiProject_Medicine_articles_for_quality ) Recent work in article quality assessment detection can enable us to automatically identify which articles are most due to be re-assessed. Let's apply this method to WikiProject Medicine's stubs. *3. First edits for male and female newcomers *( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/First_edits_for_male_and_female_newcomers ) Past work suggests female editors are more likely to be reverted. In this study, we would explore the characteristics of articles that men and women first edit to see if it yields any insight into the observed higher rate of reversion of early edits of women. *4. Editor profiles and interactions* ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Editor_profiles_and_interactions ) From doing an analysis of user edit histories, we should be able to identify “profiles”. Once profiles have been identified it would be interesting to look at what happens when users of different profiles interact, particularly when those interactions lead to one (or both) commencing a “wiki break” soon after. *5. WikiCredit: Measuring value added to Wikipedia *( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/WikiCredit:_Measuring_value_added_to_Wikipedia ) Let's build a system that will measure and present value-added to Wikipedia. Let's also consider the implications and design a system that negotiates trade-offs well. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
Hey guys, I posted some thoughts to my own blog and am linking to those posts below. Everything I say on my blog is captured in the summary below, so feel free to not click through. My biggest worry is that researchers who recruit human subjects assume that there are huge numbers of Wikipedians for them to survey, and consequently, they do not need to do a lot of advance survey preparation because there is no harm from distracting Wikipedians from their usual volunteer work. This assumption is wrong because actually almost every researcher recruiting human subjects wants Wikipedians who are in very short supply. Consequently, researchers do cause harm to the community by soliciting for volunteer time, and Wikipedia community benefit is dubious when researchers do not do sufficient preparation for their work. This is not quite accurate, but if there were one message I could convey to researchers, it would be Your research participant pool only consists of about 30 super busy people and many other volunteers greatly depend on getting their time. When you take time from a Wikipedian, you are taking that time away from other volunteers who really need it, so be respectful of your intervention in our communities. I do not want a lot of gatekeeping between researchers and the Wikipedia community, but at the same time, researchers should take professional pride in their work and take care not to disrupt Wikimedia community activities. http://bluerasberry.com/2014/07/request-for-researchers-when-doing-research-on-the-wikimedia-community/ http://bluerasberry.com/2014/07/problems-with-research-on-wikipedia/ I am still thinking about what should be done with research. yours, On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all, I am a bit late in the game, but since so many questions were raised about RCom, its scope, its goals, the source of its authority etc. and I helped coordinate it in the early days I thought I’d chime in to clear some confusion. *Is RCom an official WMF body or a group of volunteers?* RCom was created as a volunteer body to help design policies and best practices around research on Wikimedia projects. People who joined the committee did so on a volunteer basis and with a variety of interests by responding to a call for participation issued by WMF. Despite the fact that the original initiative came from WMF, its membership almost entirely consisted of non-WMF researchers and community members (those of us who are now with Wikimedia had no affiliation with the Foundation when RCom was launched [1]). RCom work was and remains 100% volunteer-driven, even for those of us who are full-time employees of the Foundation. *Is RCom a body regulating subject recruitment?* No, subject recruitment was only one among many areas of interest identified by its participants [2] *Is RCom still alive?* RCom stopped working a while ago* as a* *group meeting on a regular basis to discuss joint initiatives*. However, it spawned a large number of initiatives and workgroups that are still alive and kicking, some of which have evolved into other projects that are now only loosely associated with RCom. These include reviewing subject recruitment requests, but also the Research Newsletter, which has been published monthly for the last 3 years; countless initiatives in the area of open access; initiatives to facilitate Wikimedia data documentation and data discoverability; hackathons and outreach events aimed at bringing together researchers and Wikimedia contributors. Subject recruitment reviews and discussions are still happening, and I believe they provide a valuable service when you consider that they are entirely run by a microscopic number of volunteers. I don’t think that the alternative between “either RCom exists and it functions effectively or reviews should immediately stop” is well framed or even desirable, for the reasons that I explain below. *What’s the source of RCom’s authority in reviewing subject recruitment requests?* Despite the perception that one of RCom’s duties would be to provide formal approval for research projects, it was never designed to do so and it never had the power to enforce formal review decisions. Instead, it was offered as a volunteer support service in an effort to help minimize disruption, improve the relevance of research involving Wikimedia contributors, sanity check the credentials of the researchers, create collaborations between researchers working on the same topic. The lack of community or WMF policies to back subject recruitment caused in the past few years quite some headaches, particularly in those cases in which recruitment attempts were blocked and referred to the RCom in order to “obtain formal approval”. The review process itself was meant to be as inclusive as possible and not restricted to RCom participants and researchers having their proposal
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
This time I'll respond below. On 7/29/2014 17:50, Heather Ford 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 Two ideas: * there's a drive to print out leaflets for Wikimania, this page could be advertised there * even better, we should try to advertise it in a leaflet form at Wikisym * WMF could try to create a short handout booklet based on 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. It is a good example of an idea that helps rather than hinders researchers, and an area where RCOM-like body assistance would be useful. 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) All +1 -- Piotr Konieczny, PhD http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
I have replied at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Research_recruitment#Strong_objection 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 http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus On 7/29/2014 22:26, Aaron Halfaker wrote: 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 hfor...@gmail.com mailto:hfor...@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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
This an interesting clarification. I support framing RCOM's mission as educational (teaching researchers about best practices), and even more so clearly stating that its procedures are voluntary. In other words, such a body should have an uncontroversial consultative/advisory role, rather then be a gatekeeper of sorts. That said, I don't know if we need a body at all. Why couldn't all of this be done under existing community auspices such as WikiProject Research? I still think our priority should be to redesign our research pages, create a proper research portal with best practices (and hopefully some carrot-like tools that help researchers, from certificates to how-tos for grants/data to research tools) that we could then advertise among most Wikipedia researchers. IMHO one of RCOM's biggest fallacies was (is...) trying to frame itself as a gatekeeper then a facilitator. -- Piotr Konieczny, PhD http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus On 7/29/2014 22:42, Aaron Halfaker wrote: 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 nawr...@gmail.com mailto:nawr...@gmail.com 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 aaron.halfa...@gmail.com mailto:aaron.halfa...@gmail.com 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 Wiki-research-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
That's extremely helpful, and I suggest copying it to the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee page (that page needs many updates) -- Piotr Konieczny, PhD http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus On 7/30/2014 07:00, Dario Taraborelli wrote: Hi all, I am a bit late in the game, but since so many questions were raised about RCom, its scope, its goals, the source of its authority etc. and I helped coordinate it in the early days I thought I’d chime in to clear some confusion. *Is RCom an official WMF body or a group of volunteers?* RCom was created as a volunteer body to help design policies and best practices around research on Wikimedia projects. People who joined the committee did so on a volunteer basis and with a variety of interests by responding to a call for participation issued by WMF. Despite the fact that the original initiative came from WMF, its membership almost entirely consisted of non-WMF researchers and community members (those of us who are now with Wikimedia had no affiliation with the Foundation when RCom was launched [1]). RCom work was and remains 100% volunteer-driven, even for those of us who are full-time employees of the Foundation. *Is RCom a body regulating subject recruitment?* No, subject recruitment was only one among many areas of interest identified by its participants [2] *Is RCom still alive?* RCom stopped working a while ago/as a/ /group meeting on a regular basis to discuss joint initiatives/. However, it spawned a large number of initiatives and workgroups that are still alive and kicking, some of which have evolved into other projects that are now only loosely associated with RCom. These include reviewing subject recruitment requests, but also the Research Newsletter, which has been published monthly for the last 3 years; countless initiatives in the area of open access; initiatives to facilitate Wikimedia data documentation and data discoverability; hackathons and outreach events aimed at bringing together researchers and Wikimedia contributors. Subject recruitment reviews and discussions are still happening, and I believe they provide a valuable service when you consider that they are entirely run by a microscopic number of volunteers. I don’t think that the alternative between “either RCom exists and it functions effectively or reviews should immediately stop” is well framed or even desirable, for the reasons that I explain below. *What’s the source of RCom’s authority in reviewing subject recruitment requests?* Despite the perception that one of RCom’s duties would be to provide formal approval for research projects, it was never designed to do so and it never had the power to enforce formal review decisions. Instead, it was offered as a volunteer support service in an effort to help minimize disruption, improve the relevance of research involving Wikimedia contributors, sanity check the credentials of the researchers, create collaborations between researchers working on the same topic. The lack of community or WMF policies to back subject recruitment caused in the past few years quite some headaches, particularly in those cases in which recruitment attempts were blocked and referred to the RCom in order to “obtain formal approval”. The review process itself was meant to be as inclusive as possible and not restricted to RCom participants and researchers having their proposal reviewed were explicitly invited to address any questions or concerns raised by community members on the talk page. I totally agree that the way in which the project templates and forms were designed needs some serious overhaul to remove any indication of a binding review process or a commitment for reviews to be delivered within a fixed time frame. I cannot think of any example in which the review process discriminated some type of projects (say qualitative research) in favor of other types of research, but I am sure different research proposals attracted different levels of participation and interest in the review process. My recommendation to anyone interested in designing future subject recruitment processes is to focus on a lightweight review process open to the largest possible number of community members but backed by transparent and /enforceable/ policies. It’s a really hard problem and there is simply no obvious silver bullet solution that can be found without some experimentation and fault tolerance. *What about requests for **private data**?* Private data and technical support requests from WMF are a different story: they were folded into the list of frequently asked questions hosted on the RCom section of Meta, but by definition they require a direct and substantial involvement from the Foundation: (1) they involve WMF as the legal entity that would be held liable for disclosing data in
