Submissions/Academic Researchers in Wikimedia Communities: Ethics, Methods, and Policies

From Wikimania 2010 • Gdańsk, Poland • July 9-11, 2010
Jump to: navigation, search


Information

This is an open submission for Wikimania 2010.


Title of the submission
Academic Researchers in Wikimedia Communities: Ethics, Methods, and Policies
Type of submission (workshop, tutorial, panel, presentation)
panel
Author of the submission
R. Stuart Geiger
E-mail address or username (if username, please confirm email address in Special:Preferences)
User:Staeiou
Country of origin
USA
Affiliation, if any (organization, company etc.)
Georgetown University,
Personal homepage or blog
http://www.stuartgeiger.com
30-word contribution & benefits statement
Researchers in my wiki? It’s more likely than you think. This panel will foster dialog between wiki researchers and the community over various logistical, ethical, and policy-related concerns.
Abstract (please use no less than 300 words to describe your proposal)

In the past few years, there has been an explosion of academic researchers who are turning their attention towards Wikimedia projects. Hundreds of scholars representing virtually every discipline in the humanities, the social sciences, and the computational sciences have entered various Wikimedia communities to answer a broad range of questions using an equally diverse set of methods. As both researchers and editors have learned, actively studying wiki communities raises a number of problems and concerns, from the practical and logistical to the ethical and legal. Despite years of informal dialog and negotiation between individual researchers and editors, multiple WikiProjects dedicated to wiki research, and an ongoing attempt to craft a formal research policy, many issues are still unresolved.

The purpose of this panel is to foster a dialog between wiki researchers and the Wikimedia community on many of these issues, which include: Are talk pages, listservs, and IRC channels public spaces, and should researchers have to identify themselves when they enter? What kinds of privacy issues exist with reporting an editor’s actions in an academic article? Under what conditions should social scientists be allowed to send unsolicited requests to random samples of users, a process which has been sometimes been considered spam and resulted in the banning of researchers’ accounts? Are controversial 'breaching experiments' (such as vandalism response tests) of value, and is there a way they can be performed in a satisfactory manner? Should there be a group or committee that would review and approve certain kinds of academic research activities, similar to the Bot Approval Group? These are some of the many questions that will be asked, and audience members will be encouraged to participate in this discussion.

Participants:


Track (People and Community/Knowledge and Collaboration/Infrastructure)
People and Community
Will you attend Wikimania if your submission is not accepted?

Yes

Slides or further information (optional)


Interested attendees

If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (~~~~).

  1.  guillom 17:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. In2thats12 21:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  3. Mayooranathan 21:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  4. --WikedKentaur 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  5. Psychology 09:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  6. Kocio 13:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  7. Jérôme 13:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  8. CaptainSwing 23:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  9. Gustavocarra 13:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)