Jump to content

Research talk:WPCSB survey

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 13 years ago by UOJComm in topic More info

More info

  • Could you provide us with the study identification number (or equivalent) and contact information for your IRB?
  • How many editors do you plan to contact? How many do you need a response from to proceed?

Thanks! --EpochFail 21:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, absolutely I can supply that information. I am traveling today (6/3), but will provide that information tomorrow. Should I post that directly on my project page, or privately to you?

Regarding method of contact for the editors, I'm just worried that this is a project that many members don't "check in" with often...perhaps they were active with it years ago...so they may not view the discussion page to see the invitation. Are there any other ways to contact these editors, perhaps more directly? I noticed in the project page model I used for write my page that they proposed contacting editors by leaving the invitation message on their individual talk pages. Would this be acceptable?

Thank you very much for your help! UOJComm 15:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 05:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please post the information directly on the project page so anyone can see. If we ever ask you for information that you feel should not be posted publicly, let us know. Otherwise adding as much relevant information as possible to the project page is a good policy.
Depending on the goals of the project, we might recommend either posts on user talk pages, emails or something else. Is it important that you get some feedback from people who no longer use their account on Wikipedia? --EpochFail 16:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again for the advice. I will post the IRB approval code to the project page shortly (Today is a travel day for me). In terms of the participants, I would like to reach as many editors who signed onto this project as possible, both past and present. Some editors are no longer active on this WikiProject, or even on Wikipedia, and part of this research is to find out why (or how it is related to their experience with the group and/or the site). So I do think it is important to contact everyone who chose to publicaly sign-on to WPCSB.
Also, I'm wondering if you could tell me a bit more about how this approval process works (any info that is not on the Research Committee pages, which seem to be works-in-progress). Thank you again! [User:UOJComm|UOJComm] 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
As you've noticed, the process is still a work in progress. The role of RCom in this is to help you ensure that your recruitment goes successfully and that Wikipedians are disrupted as little as possible. After we help you get the needed information into your project page and finish discussing your recruitment approach, we'll determine consensus for whether your recruitment should be allowed. Once we've agreed, we'll recommend you proceed and help you deal with any trouble related to your recruitment attempts. --EpochFail 18:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have updated information on IRB approval with the protocol number, date of approval, and a link to UO's Office of Protection of Human Subjects. I have also indicated the number of editors I plan to contact for this survey and potential interviews.
As I discuss below with another user, I am currently waiting for my IRB to approve a modification that would allow me to also survey a small random sample of non-WPCSB editors regarding thoughts on bias. I will update that info on the project page when it goes through, though our IRB office is currently backed up, so it might be a bit. Either way, that does not affect the status of my current IRB.
Please let me know if there is other info I can provide in order for RCom to make a decision regarding my research. Thanks again! UOJComm 19:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Just had a look at the project page and don't see anything problematic that hasn't been brought up here yet, though I doubt that the IRB approval was given "on 9/23/11", and I think the survey (at which I just had a "read only" run) will take longer than the indicated 15-20 min. -- Daniel Mietchen 00:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the feedback and catching the wrong date...obviously it was 2010, which I changed on the project page. In terms of how long the survey takes, I pretested on 5 people and 20 minutes was the upward bound, but I appreciate the fact that it may take some editors longer. I am fully willing to revise the time estimate on the project page, the invitation message, and the survey introduction. Based on your dry-run, what is your best estimate? UOJComm 00:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply



Since this study directly affects a subset of Wikipedia editors that we can easily contact, I propose that we invite the WikiProject members via the project talk page to participate in this discussion. --EpochFail 21:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

CC by SA?


Hi, this seems to me an interesting and worthwhile study, and good to hear that you will be sharing the results (presumably anonymised), but can you tell us what licence you will be using? Ideally data collected from Wikipedians should be available on a wikipedia compatible licence. Also have you considered getting a control sample of other editors? WereSpielChequers 16:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the comments. Yes, I would share anonymised results...I haven't looked into what license to use yet, though. I would assume a CC Share Alike license, but if you have suggestions, I'd greatly appreciate it (I'm not sure what academics generally do in this situation...I hope to publish results and analysis in a journal or conference proceedings like WikiSym, but also want to make the results available to the community, and especially this particular WikiProject).
In terms of a control sample, I actually just submitted an IRB amendment at my university in order to contact a random sample of other editors...I am just waiting for the approval before I make it a part of this project. UOJComm 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks yes we use a CC share alike, everything you post here you are licensing under en:CC-BY-SA. You may find that worth quoting when you introduce yourself to Wikipedians, we have more than our share of people who are concerned about licensing issues and I would expect will be more likely to participate in a study where the individual responses will be confidential but anonymised results will be available under CC By SA. By the way did you encounter the minor's issue when you submitted your IRB amendment? We reckon that approximately 25% of Wikipedians are under 18 and at least one study has been somewhat skewed by omitting them (their education profile and especially the proportion of graduates is quite different to that of older editors). My hunch is that they might be underrepresented in WPCSB, though I'd love to be proved wrong on that. WereSpielChequers 06:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
What great suggestions...thank you! I will definitely let the WPCSB editors know that I will be sharing the anonymised results. In terms of editors under 18, I was not able to win that battle with my IRB, so my project will only survey those editors who are 18 or over (based on their response to the first question...they are directed to a thank you message if they say they are under 18). UOJComm 19:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply