Yep. One of the things that ruffled my feathers about RCOM from early on
was that without any official community or WMF support, it (or some of
its members, perhaps not expressing themselves clearly) gave the
impression that it holds (or should, or want) the power to decide what
can and cannot be researched with regards to Wikipedia. So, at least as
far as I am concerned, instead of looking like a
best-practices-we-want-to-help body, it started to look like
IRB/Godking-wannabe, offering nothing but promising to contribute to
instruction/procedure creep.
--
Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
On 7/18/2014 15:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Jonathan Morgan, 17/07/2014 23:37:
But because we /look like /an official body, it's easy to blame us for
failing to prevent disruptive research (if you're a community member),
for "rubber stamping" research that we like (ditto), or for drowning
research in red tape (if you're a wiki-researcher).
RCOM doesn't *look like* an official body, it claims to be one. With its
current structure, it looks like a WMF staff committee.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Committees#Staff_committees
If you don't want it to look official, it's easy: call it "interest
group", add a "draft" template, add a "under pilot" warning, call it a
subcommittee of the communications committee (a rather common format).
Nemo
_______________________________________________
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
