305:. Doing it over a course of time is no better than doing it in one go, and the fact that something is "a common practice" doesn't justify it: vandalising articles is also common, in fact far more common. Avi gan, you have not answered my message here, but you are continuing doing the talk page spamming. Can you please explain why you think it is acceptable?
105:? I'm not sure what advice the WMF have given you, but taking this approach isn't likely to give you a representative sample of the Knowledge (XXG) editor base. Incidentally, what's to stop your participants just abandoning their account for a month, claiming the cash, and continuing to edit logged-out or with an alternative account? ‑
456:
before starting any interventions. That way, Wikipedians have the opportunity to raise concerns and make suggestions for the least disruptive way to proceed. My recommendations and practice in supporting researchers to not disrupt
Knowledge (XXG) were a large part of the inspiration for what remains in
137:
Hi Avi gan, I noticed you wanted to conduct a study on the economic worth of wikipedia. I would prefer to answer your survey if it was inside wikipedia. With so many hacking and I am unfamiliar with the link provided by you, I won't go there. Looks like you haven't spend much time creating or editing
428:
to announce their intentions to run the study. In response, several
Wikipedians raised concerns and made suggestions on their Meta page. Once those conversations had concluded, I advised the researchers to proceed with their recruitment. I usually recommend that researchers post their recruitment
178:
It's too bad that to participate in the study a respondent must be based in the US. The US-based requirement is ironic given that
Knowledge (XXG) is an international organization. I provided a couple of false answers at the beginning of the survey only so that I can see what the survey looks like,
114:
Thanks for reaching out and raising those points. They are well taken and we had discussed them as well. One way how we will account for this is that we will take into account editors’ level of involvement in the analyses. We will also sample more from the group of highly active editors in order to
455:
8 years ago. However, researchers can (often inadvertently) be disruptive to the work we are doing here. So I work with researchers to make sure their studies are well documented on-wiki and to make sure that they know how to engage in conversations on the village pumps and other relevant forums
450:
I understand that this may be your first experience with external researchers on
Knowledge (XXG). It's my primary volunteer work to support such external researchers and I have been doing so since 2011. The goal in my work is to find a balance. Research of Knowledge (XXG) has produced important
379:
While there has been talk page discussion over this particular study before now, I don't think there was ever discussion over a mass mailing. Theoretically, something very general just looking for responses from random editors should either be posted on a major noticeboard or at most a watchlist
335:
who don't think its acceptable. Also, if EpochFail is right in thinking that spamming hundreds of talk pages to get participants for one's project is common practice then I wonder why I have never seen it before in all my years here. I have, on the other hand, seen editors blocked for a mere few
194:
I am really sorry about that, we wanted to do a study on the entire international community but because we are giving monetary incentives for participating, our universities have a rule that we can only use our grant money to reward US based participants (I am guessing for tax reasons).
433:. The email user functionality is much harder for the rest of Knowledge (XXG) to track. I also generally recommend that they post a few invitations at a time so that minimal damage is done if concerns are raised after the initial round of invitations have been posted.
153:
Thanks for the feedback. The survey is hosted on our university (MIT) Qualtrics account. I am not sure if it is possible to host a survey within
Knowledge (XXG). Even the Knowledge (XXG) editor survey run by the Wikimedia foundation is hosted on Qualtrics (see
35:
Hello! I noticed on the study that it asks if you would give up editing on
Knowledge (XXG) for a month. Let's say I put in 50$ + and get chosen, would I stop editing after being chosen or do you stop editing and might get chosen at the end? Good luck with it!
518:
Bluntly, I don't see how you can speak of your "recommendations and practice in supporting researchers to not disrupt
Knowledge (XXG)" when in fact it appears you have recommended that researchers do disrupt Knowledge (XXG) by posting spam.
138:
any wikipedia articles. You should try doing it for 8 hours per day. Good articles, in my opinion should take about 20 hours or more. Assessments also takes time. Poor articles can take 5 minutes using cut and paste methods. Thanks,
51:
Hi, if you are randomly chosen among the folks who respond and we selected the $ 50 row, then we will message you and then your 1 month period starts then. You will get paid at the end of the period. Does that make sense?
255:, this is a common practice for recruiting participants in research studies on Knowledge (XXG). The researchers have limited their recruitment to only 30 people per day to limit the wave of invitations. Please see
260:
93:
Random selection is all well and good, but are you aware that many if not most of the people you're inviting are brand-new accounts who have made only a handful of edits to
Knowledge (XXG), including
501:
I have been watching this study unfold since the original
Village Pump posting. I would suggest moving this back there so that it can again be talked about by the wider community. Best,
283:
I fail to see how spamming n people over a period of days is any better than doing them all in one go. If this is a common practice, we should put a stop to it forthwith like any spam.
259:
for a discussion of best practices. As far as I can tell, these researchers have applied the best practices and have had several discussions about their recruiting work. Please see
533:
Thanks for all the discussion and comments. I will stop posting further invites and make a post again the village pump to solicit better ways of reaching out to potential subjects.
331:
I have received numerous thanks from editors for reverting your spam on their talk pages, and I have also been thanked for my edits to this talk page, so it is not just me and
115:
get a clear picture of their valuations. We will explain those details of the analyses on the project meta page once the data collection is completed. Thanks again!--
155:
231:
Your survey may or may not be a good idea, but spamming literally hundreds of user talk pages isn't. Please don't continue to promote your work in this way.
209:
I don't care about the reward; I just wanted to see what the study looked like. Also contribute to the study in case it's helpful. Peace. --
477:
With that said, it seems you have raised concerns that were *not* raised during the initial posting on the village pump. I've reached out to
287:
says "research projects that are disruptive to the community" are not allowed, and getting spam on my talk page is certainly disruptive.
66:
Ahh, thanks for clarifying. I'll sign up, it'll be interesting. Good luck with the study, I'd love to see the results when it's done.
515:
The original village pump proposal makes no mention of the talk page spam. The Meta page does, but not particularly prominently.
492:
274:
263:
for details about their study and please also see the associated talk page for discussions about their recruiting practices. --
380:
notice. If there actually is consensus to send out a mass mailing, procedure should be followed and it should be done via
451:
insights that help
Knowledge (XXG) function. I wrote up a summary of the types of insights we gain from researchers for
425:
347:
316:
242:
81:
460:(the original policy proposal was much more comprehensive and went through years of almost being policy).
430:
452:
524:
506:
488:
292:
270:
214:
184:
457:
385:
284:
256:
94:
384:
by an experienced editor. As it stands right now, the actions taken almost certainly violate the
411:
366:
343:
312:
252:
238:
381:
481:
to suggest that he stop sending recruitment messages while this conversation develops. --
419:
389:
143:
106:
520:
502:
482:
415:
374:
370:
332:
302:
288:
264:
210:
180:
71:
41:
534:
478:
196:
159:
116:
98:
53:
17:
429:
messages on talk pages so that their activities can easily be monitored using
139:
67:
37:
261:
m:Research:How much do Wikipedians in the US value editing Knowledge (XXG)?
179:
but I quit before the end. I trust that does not mess up your study. --
80:
Thanks! We will post the results on the meta-wiki page of the project
542:
528:
510:
496:
392:
351:
320:
296:
278:
246:
218:
204:
188:
167:
147:
124:
109:
75:
61:
45:
25:
388:
since they look to be semi-automated mass edits without consensus.
16:
Hello, please feel free to leave a message for me here. --
102:
99:someone who averages only one edit every two years
8:
336:dozen spam posts to user talk pages.
95:someone who's only ever made one edit
7:
483:
426:made a posting on the village pump
265:
103:an outright vandalism-only account
14:
339:The editor who uses the pseudonym
308:The editor who uses the pseudonym
234:The editor who uses the pseudonym
1:
543:02:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
529:02:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
511:20:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
497:20:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
393:18:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
352:15:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
321:15:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
297:04:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
279:19:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
247:16:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
219:18:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
205:15:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
189:15:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
168:06:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
148:06:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
125:20:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
110:20:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
76:02:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
62:02:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
46:02:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
26:00:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
569:
424:The authors of the study
538:
453:Knowledge (XXG):Research
200:
163:
120:
57:
21:
431:Special:Recentchanges
341:
310:
236:
560:
485:
423:
378:
337:
306:
267:
232:
568:
567:
563:
562:
561:
559:
558:
557:
409:
364:
229:
176:
135:
33:
12:
11:
5:
566:
564:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
516:
513:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
357:
356:
355:
354:
326:
325:
324:
323:
299:
228:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
175:
172:
171:
170:
134:
131:
130:
129:
128:
127:
90:
89:
88:
87:
86:
85:
32:
29:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
565:
544:
540:
536:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
517:
514:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:
498:
494:
490:
486:
480:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
459:
454:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
432:
427:
421:
417:
413:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
394:
391:
387:
383:
376:
372:
368:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
353:
349:
345:
340:
334:
330:
329:
328:
327:
322:
318:
314:
309:
304:
301:I agree with
300:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
268:
262:
258:
254:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
240:
235:
227:December 2018
226:
220:
216:
212:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
193:
192:
191:
190:
186:
182:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
152:
151:
150:
149:
145:
141:
132:
126:
122:
118:
113:
112:
111:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
83:
79:
78:
77:
73:
69:
65:
64:
63:
59:
55:
50:
49:
48:
47:
43:
39:
30:
28:
27:
23:
19:
412:JamesBWatson
367:JamesBWatson
344:JamesBWatson
338:
313:JamesBWatson
307:
253:JamesBWatson
239:JamesBWatson
233:
230:
177:
136:
34:
15:
420:Nathan2055
390:Nathan2055
386:bot policy
133:Your Study
107:Iridescent
521:Pinkbeast
503:Barkeep49
484:EpochFail
458:WP:NOTLAB
416:Pinkbeast
375:EpochFail
371:Pinkbeast
333:Pinkbeast
303:Pinkbeast
289:Pinkbeast
285:WP:NOTLAB
266:EpochFail
257:WP:NOTLAB
211:Roger Hui
181:Roger Hui
31:RE: Study
493:contribs
275:contribs
174:US-based
535:Avi gan
479:Avi gan
418:, and
373:, and
197:Avi gan
160:Avi gan
117:Avi gan
54:Avi gan
18:Avi gan
382:WP:MMS
140:SWP13
539:talk
525:talk
507:talk
489:talk
348:talk
317:talk
293:talk
271:talk
243:talk
215:talk
201:talk
185:talk
164:talk
158:).--
156:here
144:talk
121:talk
101:and
82:here
72:talk
68:Kb03
58:talk
42:talk
38:Kb03
22:talk
346:" (
315:" (
241:" (
541:)
527:)
509:)
495:)
491:•
414:,
369:,
350:)
319:)
295:)
277:)
273:•
245:)
217:)
203:)
195:--
187:)
166:)
146:)
123:)
97:,
74:)
60:)
52:--
44:)
24:)
537:(
523:(
505:(
487:(
422::
410:@
377::
365:@
342:"
311:"
291:(
269:(
237:"
213:(
199:(
183:(
162:(
142:(
119:(
84:.
70:(
56:(
40:(
20:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.