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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
