User talk:PiperNigrum/Research study recruitment of Wikipedians

Proposed outline
I'm a fan of the content of this article. I'd like to propose a different organization style though. Please feel free to edit/discuss. -- EpochFail (talk 22:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's something to consider. Mostly a question of which is preferred, an incident-major order, or a situation-major order. I'm not yet sure which would work better right now. --  PiperNigrum  (hail&#124;scan) 22:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly enough to push for one or the other, but I feel like it will be important to surround the incidents with as much context as possible. I found that to be easiest when doing situation-major, but if we can find a way to do that incident-major, I'd like that too. -- EpochFail  (talk 22:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've tried reorganizing it into a format similar to the outline below. I'm undecided on whether this format is better. Thoughts? --  PiperNigrum  (hail&#124;scan) 17:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Studies that need to recruit participants on Wikipedia are important (and should be accommodated)
 * Actually evaluate real-world Wikipedia
 * Allow for causal analysis (What happens when I change this variable?)
 * Recruitment is hard
 * Random samples are necessary for statistical validity
 * Posting on forums (VPP, WP:CENT, mailing lists)
 * Non-random sample
 * Only Wikipedians read them
 * Sometimes Unwelcome/Study design questions
 * Example NICE/HAPPI
 * Posting on talk pages
 * Random sample possible
 * Considered SPAM
 * Example KPanciera
 * Example Ben Collier
 * Sometimes Researchers have no idea what is acceptable
 * And then they do something absurd
 * Example health study
 * Proposed solution: SRAG
 * Central location for discussion/approval
 * Upset editors can be pointed to prior consensus
 * Upset editors can participate or otherwise constructively vent their frustrations to the people to participate in discussions
 * Process can continually refine (improving discussions/decision making and recruitment methods)
 * Well defined process for researchers to follow
 * So they don't need to know all applicable policy (or the general, undocumented opinions of Wikipedians)
 * Consult Wikipedians and other researchers about what is acceptable
 * Wikipedians have a chance to review research plans before they have a chance to cause disruption
 * Bot to handle recruitment
 * Opt-out mechanism
 * Quick/exact