Research talk:Means and methods of coordination in WikiProjects

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Means and Methods of Coordination[edit]

Please post any comments or discussion of this suggested research below. Thanks, Md gilbert (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor concerns raised on English Wikipedia[edit]

Hey guys. A few people got spooked on English Wikipedia because they saw a recruitment message that didn't link back to the study docs here. I don't think there is much cause for concern, but I think it is a good idea to let all those involved have a chance to review the study and ask any questions they have before you continue.

In the meantime, in encourage you to check out Grants:IEG/WikiProject_X, a related project group that just started work. See their announcement. --EpochFail (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EpochFail We talked about this yesterday and I answered their questions about Wikimedia community expectations. Md gilbert already yesterday started providing links where he had previously posted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the archive of the problem discussion. In my opinion this is a serious escalation and I hope that researchers consider what caused this concern, how important community protection is, and how they can avoid causing future anxiety. The best protect is to link back to this project page in all notices and discussions of this and to be available to communicate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EpochFail, Bluerasberry, thank you for your direction in this matter. I've updated the recruitment letter to include the link to this research page, and I'll make sure all future communication around this project references this page to ensure all relevant information is available to interested Wikipedians. And thanks for the link to WikiProject X - I saw their announcement on the research mailing list the other day and it definitely seems like there are some intriguing possibilities there, and perhaps the potential for collaboration moving forward. Md gilbert (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been 4 days since my original posting. It looks like no substantial concerns have been raised. It seems safe to continue recruitment if you haven't already done so. Good luck and learn some useful stuff!  :) --EpochFail (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Email security[edit]

I had raised a question with regards to the security of private information sent via email. Another user commented with the obvious disclaimer about security of information received vai email, but I interpreted it slightly differently with regards to the handling of private data/information after it has been received. However, as this is a project being run by the University of Washington I would presume there are some standard protocols and safeguards in place to manage this data? Blackmane (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blackmane, the reference to email security is intended to indicate that email in transit is potentially insecure. All data, including email communication, interview audio/video/text, and related transcripts are kept private and secure as approved by the University of Washington IRB, application #48287. Let me know if you have any other questions and I'll jump on it. Md gilbert (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine in my eyes. The original post that I saw was a little vague on that front. At the time, I hadn't seen (or I had missed) that the research was being conducted by the University of Washington. Thank you for clarifying. 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


At User talk:Pgrobison#Research request.

More generally, if your requirements are genuine, you should only be sending requests to people whose talk page displays a WP button or whose name appears on a list of active participants. Are you planning on caveating your research with a note that says that people's involvement in WPs was self-declared and unverified?LlywelynII (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]