Hello, At Wikimania in London August 6-7 there is a research meetup. Some RCOM people will be there. < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/August_6-7th,_2014 > I will be there all Thursday 7 August. Research ethics oversight is not the priority for this group and statistics seems to be, but at least I want to visit this group and see what they think.
I support Aaron and RCOM, and would prefer that no one blame either for anything. I think both are being held responsible for a lot of complicated issues that are beyond the scope of what they are empowered to cover. RCOM has some strengths and weaknesses. I wish to empower the Research Committee and make it known for its strengths, and to help it divest responsibilities for areas which it cannot manage as well and find other channels for dealing with whatever RCOM is unable to do. Nathan, I would be willing to talk with you by phone or video sometime if you like. It is not that I want to make this private, but just that text and email are not the same as conversations with voice. I have no solutions, but at least I might be able to describe the positions of stakeholders in research, list options, and say something about what kinds of actions would be conservative and what would be radical. I wish for a bit more community participation in research oversight, but overall, I want to reduce bureaucracy and gatekeeping, and I think others may wish for this as well. Researchers are awesome and they need support. yours, On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Aaron Halfaker <ahalfa...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > 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> > -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 l...@bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ 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>
