Research talk:Subject recruitment

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

List of approved research projects[edit]

Is there a list of approved research projects anywhere? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Approval required[edit]

On another page, someone asked which page said that approval was required to do research. Here is that discussion. On the talk page user:DarTar says that approval is required, so I just added the statement that approval is required to this page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think there should be a process for granting and displaying approval. Now that I have started to look at this, I see that there are some researchers who come to this project, ask for a lot from Wikipedia users, and then do not adequately offer a return of results which makes it fair for them to come here and use the project's user base in the name of good will or promoting Wikipedia. I think that frequently researchers ask users to do long surveys to improve Wikipedia then just leave without doing anything but taking volunteer time.
The approval process which seems to be in place now is that if researchers create a project page on meta which describes their project and contact information then they get approval. This seems good to me, and I think that if anyone did a review and passed or failed the research proposal based on the researchers' making a minimal effort to describe themselves and agreeing to at least green OA, then that would cut out many researchers who otherwise are not contributing meaningfully. Is that the scheme that is in place now? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Lane, thanks for chiming in, I tried to address these questions in my response to this thread on wiki-research-l. I appreciate the documentation on the review procedure and its purpose is quite sketchy, any help is very welcome --DarTar (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I made a proposal. See here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we have a consensus to say that approval of the RCom is required. There's no hint of this at w:Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia. Then there's the fact that most scholars are not aware of RCom existence, or of any of our policies. How are we going to make them ask us for permission? Even if we say that they should because of ethical reasons, if they are unaware of this procedure, we cannot blame them for not asking. Then there's the question of ethical authority of RCom: how are its members elected? Do they have community (or even peer) endorsement? Plus; without any activity logs, this seems like a dead policy anyway. I see a "requirement for approval from RCom" as reaching too far, and creating a bureaucratic rule that is going to be ignored by most. Lastly, assuming that researchers adhere to their usual codes of ethics, what kind of research would be reject? Researchers are already required to observe confidentiality, anonymity, and such. The only thing missing from "Ethically researching Wikipedia" that I can think of is a note about "don't disrupt Wikipedia" through fake vandalism or such for the purpise of research, through this is still covered by most ethic codes (ASA's "social impact", in my field, for example). Ps. Lookin at Research talk:Committee/Areas of interest/Subject recruitment it seems that this page does not reflect the (lack of) consensus for any kind of requirement that a permission is obtained. I stand by User:Pundit's view: "[I...] oppose a large procedure and obligatory reviews for everybody doing research on Wikipedia". --Piotrus (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Piotrus Message me to talk on phone or Skype sometime. There are too many issues raised here and each one could have several answers depending on your perspective. I am happy to respond but if we chat first that may help guide future discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

How many studies have been approved through this procedure?[edit]

Have any researchers asked for permission here? We should have a transparent log of requests and outcomes. --Piotrus (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

"A transparent log of requests" is a bit in opposition to what you say above. Let's chat by voice sometime. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Category:Projects_reviewed_by_RCom I try to keep it up to date. --EpochFail (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply