Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Subject Recruitment Approvals Group




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  keep per WP:SNOW. We're at the point where it's obvious this won't be deleted. –MuZemike 23:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Subject Recruitment Approvals Group & Research
A self-selected bureaucracy without anything to be bureaucratic about. Wikipedia typically gets three or four visits a year from researchers seeking to engage Wikipedians in a study, and they typically make a complete hash of it, usually because the researchers feel that as academics they are naturally entitled to various things. However, that does not justify the existence of this ugly bureaucracy and its requirements. Compare School and University projects, which deals with the same sort of issue (academics coming onto Wikipedia with a sense of entitlement), much more frequently, without the need for bureaucratic nonsense. Best to let this die in its crib, and replace it with a more open process if it actually needs replacing at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Wrong procedure, for one thing. This just went through an RFC to get off the ground. Maurreen (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- pointy nomination -- don't nominate something for deletion because you don't like the general idea. This went through a LOT of discussion between researchers and non-researcher Wikipedians before getting posted up. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't that I don't like the general idea - I will go on record as stating that I like the general idea very much, if it is implemented as something like WP:SUP. I object to the bureaucracy that this proposes to create from whole cloth, which was never advertised anywhere (the general idea was, the bureaucracy was not). — Gavia immer (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * SUP is a fundamentally different thing -- it's simply a listing of school & university projects, so naturally there's not much bureaucracy -- because it's only a list that people add their projects to. I'd say the "outreach" part of SUP hasn't actually gone very well (I've been using and following it for several years). The research policy is trying to do something different: provide a process and a policy for researchers who want to interact successfully with the wikipedia community. (There were and are also several research-interest-group pages that have existed for several years, more like SUP, but people felt they needed more). If you don't like the idea of there being a process, then yes, I'd say you don't like the general idea. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait to see if anything good comes of this. If this is a failure, then mark as rejected but do not delete it. harej  03:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I don't think you bothered to understand why this policy was created in the first place. Academics are not Wikipedians. Often they do not understand all the inner workings of Wikipedian norms, and what might come off as "a sense of entitlement" are really just gaffes. Have you ever attempted to solicit participation in a study on a site as complex as Wikipedia? If you have, then you'd know that having a clear protocol for how to approach the community is critical. This is what this policy is about. It might seem bureaucratic to you, but to academics its a minor hurdle compared to IRB approvals at Universities, and its designed to guide researchers so as to avoid harming the community and their chances at a successful research effort. And if you're wondering whether such guidance is really necessary, just ask the researchers with prior miserable experiences. You can find us as wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 24.17.55.116 (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Inappropriate nomination. Your criticism could be added to discussion of the proposition. Fred Talk 04:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see this as an "ugly bureaucracy". I don't yet know if the group will be worth keeping in the long run. Better to see how much business comes its way first. If necessary, it could be deleted at a later time. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an idea worth seeing through. And deletion is not the best way to address the concerns that you raised. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose One of the purposes of this group is to help researchers to contact Wikipedia users and editors without "making a complete hash of it," and to provide some pre-vetting to minimize the number and impact of bogus/poorly-executed recruitments. Also, as has been mentioned, it just completed its RFC to get started. Elehack (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all opposers above. It's inconsistent to complain that researchers do a poor job of engaging Wikipedia and try to delete efforts to help them improve that. The reason for this policy and its structure were extensively discussed over several months and multiple invitations to participate in this discussion were posted around. See Wikipedia_talk:Research and its archives, and if you have criticisms, post them there. --R27182818 (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as usual with this type of proposals being put at MfD, but noting that the RFC was not properly advertized and therefore is not valid for promotion to policy, and the process needs community consensus in any case. Cenarium (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a debate on the talk page, but I haven't found the RFC yet. Perhaps those who were interested were notified, but at least an archive copy of it should be available. Perhaps Wikipedia_talk:Research is it. Fred Talk 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've linked to the correct discussion for the RFC. The RFC tag was removed by the RFC bot in this edit, since at that time, the discussion had been open for 30 days.  It was just before the tags removal that I posted (twice) on WP:VPP asking for an independent editor to close the discussion. -- EpochFail  (talk 22:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This policy been built over months of work by researchers and Wikipedians. The RFC for changing its status from proposed to policy was closed by an independent party who had not participated in the writing or discussion until that time.  As the originator of the RFC, I followed the recommendations found at Policy without compromise to the best of my knowledge.  I can't imagine what line of reasoning would justify the deletion of either of these pages.-- EpochFail  (talk 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark disputed Now that there are more eyes, it's clear there are problems with this "policy." I suggest marking it disputed and working it out. Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.  N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 04:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, appropiately tagged.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 08:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Discussion over its future is happening on its talk page. Let see what happens before doing anything. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep IIRC policies and guidelines are not subject to XfD.  Instead we're supposed to use RfC's.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @998, i.e. 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.