User talk:EpochFail/Research recruitment

Goals[edit]

Below is a set of goals I think are essential for this document. I am asserting them strongly now in order to encourage discussion. Please feel free to edit the outline yourself. --EpochFail 21:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The goals of this document are to:

Assert the importance of reinforcing cooperation between researchers and other type of contributors to the Wikimedia communities.
- 1.1. Increase the understanding of research role and value. Developing research is a way to contribute to Wikimedia goals and it is a valuable resources for its further development. Wikipedia and other projects benefit from the understanding and knowledge made possible by research (any research generally and from research on/for Wikimedia more particularly) (Must reference what research is).
Put clarity on the type of research goals and procedurals which are more in line with respecting or/and promoting community principles and values and might constitute a contribution to Wikimedia, and the type of research which is far from Wikimedia goals and values. Furthermore, specify (broadly) the type of research projects that are more welcome to recruit participants from Wikimedia communities as being in line with Wikimedia principles and values.
- 2.1. Scholarly research projects whose goal is to create knowledge and share this knowledge with the public (I don't understand this sentence Mayo)
Help to improve the relationship between researchers and other type of community contributors and increase their mutual understanding, by specifying the most appropriate behavior of researchers when recruiting participants from Wikimedia communities and increasing the understanding of editors and other contributors on research needs and value.
- 3.1 For example, researchers are invited to seek approval of their actions within a community before taking those actions. Editors and other contributors are encouraged to understand the special constrains and needs of research and its value for Wikipedia growth and further development.
- 3.2 Reduce the disruption that research practices might affect other contributors' work in Wikimedia projects.

Comments:

To me there is a bit of "writing" incoherence between the points. Most are goals (or I rewrote them as goals), while others are statements or are much more specific than the rest (3.1).
An option is to consider if to say from the very beginning the scope of research this document is adressed to or leave it like this talking on research generically.
In a thread at Administrators Notice Board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers_requesting_administrators.E2.80.99_advices_to_launch_a_study) an admin did this comment:

By the way, do not rely on the "Subject Recruitment Approvals Group". I can see no indication that they are backed by anything approaching a consensus of Wikipedia editors. This is in contrast to the Bot Approval Group, which has a track record of ensuring that large-scale activities on the site do not disrupt work on the encyclopedia. Hans Adler 10:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good invitation to reflect on which lessons could be adopted from the Bot Approval Group to develop the Subject Recreatument Approvals?

Mayo --Lilaroja 14:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. There are a few comments that I'd like to address and this format doesn't let me do this well. First, it seems I misspoke when I suggested that I was writing goals. I intended to assert some requirements of the document. I find that requirements are much easier to specify than goals. With that in mind, I think talking about goals is actually more to the point even if it is more difficult.

Also, I'm not sure what "Put clarity on the type of research goals and procedurals which are more in line with respecting or/and promoting community principles and values and might constitute a contribution to Wikimedia" means. If you are suggesting that we write about research topics or outputs that are considered acceptable, I strongly disagree. My original point was intended to specify that only scholarly research intended to discover and share knowledge would be supported. Specifying that research must make a tangible contribution to a Wikimedia project, I feel, is too restrictive.

Finally, SRAG is modeled after BAG. The idea is that BAG is a good process for bots and those of us who started SRAG thought we needed to develop a good process to vet research proposals as well. Hans has made it clear in the past that he'd like SRAG to not exist in favor of funneling all participant recruitment requests through BAG. There are quite a few reasons that I disagree. You can see the whole discussion (among many others) hashed out on the old en:WP:Research talk page. --EpochFail 15:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit more user data urgently needed[edit]

Hi. Based partly on the research you provided, we are working towards solutions for New Page Patrol coupled with new user retention. These matters are now critical and need urgent attention. I have made a request http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions#Progress.3F HERE for a bit more data. Anything you can do to help would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Kudpung 23:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]