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>
