Wikipedia is Not a Laboratory
editFull text, previous draft
|
|---|
|
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize existing knowledge. Wikipedia is not a laboratory and may not be used for experiments other than disclosed experiments in the improvement of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Experiments involving humans, such as Wikipedia editors, require informed consent, and in addition are only permitted if their purpose is the improvement of Wikipedia. Experiments involving the use of Wikipedia, such as by the creation of articles to test the transfer of knowledge or to see if the articles are cited or the information in them is copied or used, must have been discussed and approved, to ensure both that the ethics of any use of humans as subjects and that the experiment is consistent with (or at least not inconsistent with) the improvement of the encyclopedia. Editors who are found to be using Wikipedia for improper experimental purposes may be banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC) |
Dos
editFull text, previous draft
|
|---|
|
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it is not the encyclopedia that anyone can experiment with, because the purpose of Wikipedia is not to serve as a public laboratory. There has been a good deal of scholarship involving various Wikimedia projects, and many of these can be found at the Wikimedia Foundation research blog or at meta:Research. Most studies of this type are allowed because it does not interfere with the goals of those projects. When research does materially affect Wikipedia and its volunteers, it is expected to be done with the highest level of transparency possible, the explicit consent of the community through consensus, and with a primary goal of improving the encyclopedia. Most content on Wikipedia is made freely available to the public under a Creative Commons license, and this includes researchers who would like to use the existing content of the encyclopedia for analysis. However, this does not extend to designs which involve actively editing in the pursuit of any goal other than building a better encyclopedia. Such designs are generally seen as disruptive, are likely to needlessly waste the time of volunteers, and raise serious ethical concerns regarding the informed consent of unwitting participants. Editors involved in such studies may face sanctions, including the loss of editing privileges and the reporting of potential ethical violations to their relevant Institutional Review Boards. |
Tres
editFull text, previous draft
|
|---|
|
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it is not the encyclopedia that anyone can experiment with, because the purpose of Wikipedia is not to serve as a public laboratory. There has been a good deal of scholarship involving various Wikimedia projects.[1] Most studies are allowed because they do not interfere with the goals of the project. When research does materially affect Wikipedia and its volunteers, it is expected to be done with the highest level of transparency possible, the consent of the community through consensus, and with a primary goal of improving the encyclopedia. Most content on Wikipedia is made freely available to the public under a Creative Commons license, and this includes researchers who would like to use the existing content of the encyclopedia for analysis.[2] However, this does not extend to designs which involve actively editing in the pursuit of any goal other than building a better encyclopedia. Such designs are generally seen as disruptive, are likely to needlessly waste the time of volunteers, and raise serious ethical concerns regarding the informed consent of unwitting participants. All editors are expected to comply with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, and to disclose any conflicts of interests and paid editing. This includes conflicts that arise from affiliations with academic or other scientific institutions (including positions such as a student, faculty, or other type of affiliated researcher), as well as editing which is ultimately paid for by things like grants, scholarships or fellowships. In all circumstances, editors are expected to provide prominent notification, such as a statement on their user page, of what type of research is being conducted and why. In cases where intrusive research is conducted for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, it is best practice to seek the prior approval of the community in an appropriate public forum. In cases where intrusive research is conducted for a goal other than improving the encyclopedia, users may seek the prior approval of the community, but should be advised that they may be unlikely to receive it, and should not proceed without prior approval. At all times, editors are expected to err on the side of transparency and prior community approval in any case where a research design might be considered questionable by any experienced editor. Editors who disregard community norms regarding study design, transparency or personal conduct may face sanctions, including the loss of editing privileges, and the reporting of potential ethical violations to their relevant Institutional Review Boards or other oversight bodies as appropriate. Notesedit
|
Quatro
editFull text, previous draft
|
|---|
|
While there has been much scholarship involving Wikipedia,[1] Wikipedia is not a public laboratory. Most research is allowed because it does not interfere with the goals of the project. When it does affect Wikipedia and its volunteers, it is expected to be done with the highest level of transparency, consent of the community through consensus, and the primary goal of improving the encyclopedia. Most content on Wikipedia is made available to the public under a Creative Commons license, and this includes researchers using existing content for analysis.[2] However, this does not include actively editing in the pursuit of any goal other than building an encyclopedia. Such designs are generally seen as disruptive, are likely to waste the time of volunteers, and raise ethical concerns regarding the informed consent of participants. All editors are expected to comply with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, and disclose any conflicts of interests and paid editing. This includes affiliations with academic institutions (including students, faculty, or other researchers), as well as editing which is paid for by grants, scholarships or fellowships. All editors are expected to provide prominent notification, such as on their user page, of what research is being conducted and why. In cases where intrusive research is proposed to improve the encyclopedia, it is best to seek prior approval in an appropriate public forum. In cases where intrusive research is proposed for some other goal, users may seek prior approval, but are advised they may not receive, and should not proceed without it. All editors are expected to err on the side of transparency and prior approval where the nature of a design might be questionable. Editors who disregard community norms regarding design, transparency or conduct may face sanctions, including the loss of editing privileges, and the reporting of potential ethical violations to their relevant Institutional Review Boards or others as appropriate. Notesedit |
Current proposal
editThere has been much scholarship involving Wikipedia,[1] but Wikipedia is not a public laboratory and editors are not lab rats. Research that analyzes content or editor behavior needs no permission, because the content of Wikipedia is open to everyone. Research that is interventional—that involves surveying editors or making changes in content—should be conducted only with prior consensus at relevant WikiProjects, the Village Pump, or at the administrators' noticeboard, and should be disclosed clearly on the editor's user page.[2] Researchers must disclose outside connections under the conflict of interest guideline. If their work on Wikipedia is conducted in the course of their employment, they must disclose this under the paid editing policy. Editing directed at any goal other than building an encyclopedia, or improving the experience of editors and readers, is likely to be seen by the community as disruptive and will likely entail time-wasting cleanup by our volunteers. Editors who disregard community norms regarding design, transparency, or conduct may face sanctions, including the loss of editing privileges.