Wikipedia:Subject Recruitment Approvals Group/Requests/Political Knowledge Production
- Contact Information
- Real name: Johanna Niesyto
- User name: Jojoona
- University of Siegen, Germany:
- Previous work about Wikipedia
Presentations
- Cultures of Publics on the Web: “United in Diversity“ on the Wikipedia? Conference ‘Shaping Europe in a Globalized World? Protest Movements and the Rise of a Transnational Civil Society’, University of Zurich, Department of German, June 23-26, 2009.
- Wikipedia as Translingual Space. Conference ‘WikiWars‘. Institute of Network Cultures and The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, January 12-13, 2010.
- Experiences with tools across the EN and DE language versions. Workshop ‘WikiAnalytics’. Digital Methods Initiative, Amsterdam, March 25, 2010.
- Digital Research Infrastructures: What to Learn from Wikipedia (Critique)? Le Numérique Éditorial et Sa Gouvernance: Entre Savoirs et Pouvoirs. Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art, Paris, April 28-30.
- Wikipedia – Translingual Space of Politics of Knowledge Production and Political Knowledge Production, Doctoral Symposium, Gdansk, Wikisym 2010 (accepted).
Releated Activities
Study name: Political knowledge production in the Social Web: The case of Wikipedia
[edit]Research objectives The objective of my research is the exploration of the interrelations between knowledge production and the political in the context of the appropriation of the social web by peer-to-peer-networks. Since Wikipedia has become ‘mainstream’ and is one of the major actors of knowledge production – at least in German and English speaking web – the English and German language versions of Wikipedia (the two biggest versions ) are taken as example to explore both the politics of knowledge production and political knowledge production.
Wikipedia is not only a public space of political knowledge production and a space of politics of knowledge but also a public space which gathers different languages versions in one project. In this vein Wikipedia is a translingual space which might be able to meet challenges of knowledge production in a globalized world. Given that Wikipedia is structured by languages, the concept of the ‘translingual’ pays attention to both territorialization and deterritorialization. The translingual becomes visible as cultures (in plural!). These cultures can be understood as a kind of thickening of translocal processes of practices and the articulation of meaning in a common technical framework.
Against this backdrop, guiding questions for the identified key topics are:
- Politics of knowledge production: What are the rules and power games of knowledge production on Wikipedia? What norms and values are agreed upon and what is contested across and within the chosen language versions? Do differences in terms of policies and politics exist with regard to the language versions or are differences rather to be found due to the type of conflict?
- Political knowledge production: Which kind of political knowledge is produced in the English and German language versions of Wikipedia? How and in which ways is knowledge produced on the platform? What commonalities and differences can be found by comparing the two language versions? What is deemed to be ‘official’/marginalized political knowledge on Wikipedia across the chosen language versions?
- Recruitment message text
Hello xy!
I am a political science researcher and I look at Wikipedia as translingual space of political knowledge proudction (for more info see my user page and/or my blog). I would be very happy if you could grant me an e-mail-interview as I would really love to gain more insights in the past discussion of article xy.
Looking very much forward to hear from you! Johanna /jojoona (en) /jojoon (de)
- User sample criteria
As I have already collected the largest part of my empirical data before this approval group was set up, I miss only eight interviews in the en_wp and eight interviews in the de_wp. I will chose specific sections of talk pages of four articles and interview two main discussants for each article's talk page. As done previously I will approach the selected users by wp_mail individually or through their user page.
- Possible harms to Wikipedia/Wikipedians
No appreciable foreseeable risk of harm to participants since participants will be asked with what name they would like to be cited or if they would like to remain anonymous. No interview will be published in full length, only selected quotations.
- Publication of results
I don't know yet.
Discussion
[edit]This request looks like it can be approved quickly to me. The study is about knowledge production within Wikipedia which I'd argue is relevant to the community's interests. My only questions are about a consent form and IRB approval status. Will participants sign a consent form prior to being interviewed or have they already signed one? Does the university you are working from have a human subjects review board similar to an institutional review board that approves research like this? --EpochFail(talk|work) 14:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- So far I have done it this way: I have approached the users I wanted to interview through their talk page or wp-mail. I have informed them at the beginning of the interview about the way interview data will be used as I will not publish any interviews in full length but selected quotations. After the interview, the interviewees have the chance to go through the whole e-mail or transcribed talk. They may mark paragraphs they do not want to have quoted directly etc. Attached to this final version, users sent me the declaration of consent in which they do also state how they want to be quoted (anonymous, user name, real name). My university supervisors did not sent me to a formal process in which qualitative research like mine is approved. That might look differently with quantitative data. Do you want me to check? Have you of the SRAG though about how to deal with qualitative research? And what was your initial idea to formalize i.e. to set up a process? --Jojoona (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the way you are obtaining consent. It seems like a very thorough process that puts the subject in control. I'm not worried about an approval board if your supervisors have advised you that you are proceeding correctly. Different countries/cultures approach human subjects research approval differently and would not expect all universities to have as strict a system as I'm familiar with. --EpochFail(talk|work) 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- So far I have done it this way: I have approached the users I wanted to interview through their talk page or wp-mail. I have informed them at the beginning of the interview about the way interview data will be used as I will not publish any interviews in full length but selected quotations. After the interview, the interviewees have the chance to go through the whole e-mail or transcribed talk. They may mark paragraphs they do not want to have quoted directly etc. Attached to this final version, users sent me the declaration of consent in which they do also state how they want to be quoted (anonymous, user name, real name). My university supervisors did not sent me to a formal process in which qualitative research like mine is approved. That might look differently with quantitative data. Do you want me to check? Have you of the SRAG though about how to deal with qualitative research? And what was your initial idea to formalize i.e. to set up a process? --Jojoona (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm confused by the term Political Knowledge. Can you explain it?
- This is a term I do elaborate through my research. Very often this term is used to describe factual knowledge about politics and political processes, e.g. do you know the name of your countries' president? Against it, I would like to put emphasis on the processual quality of political knowledge. That is why I do focus on political knowledge production understood as the process of contestation/agreement/common sense about what and how knowledge comes to be. There is a long tradition in social sciences that puts emphasis on the interrelations of knowledge production and the political having the underlying idea that knowledge is essentiallly politically, and a cultural-discursive product (see e.g. Foucault, Habermas, Teun A. van Dijk). In this vein, I do analytically distinguish between
- politics of knowledge production: norms and values that refer to the HOW of knowledge production, e.g. communication about the how to formulate guidelines and/or rules
- political knowledge production: ACTUAL communicative (re-)presentation of political knowledge, implementation of norms and actual practises of knowledge production on content level. --Jojoona (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is a term I do elaborate through my research. Very often this term is used to describe factual knowledge about politics and political processes, e.g. do you know the name of your countries' president? Against it, I would like to put emphasis on the processual quality of political knowledge. That is why I do focus on political knowledge production understood as the process of contestation/agreement/common sense about what and how knowledge comes to be. There is a long tradition in social sciences that puts emphasis on the interrelations of knowledge production and the political having the underlying idea that knowledge is essentiallly politically, and a cultural-discursive product (see e.g. Foucault, Habermas, Teun A. van Dijk). In this vein, I do analytically distinguish between
- I don't quite understand the sample criteria. What kinds of articles - purely political articles, or any article - will you be selecting 8 editors from the talk pages? What basis will you select those 8 editors?
- In interviews and through talks with Wikipedians I have found that some articles were extremely relevant to my research questions. I have chose two articles per each perspective of analysis that I look at in the en and de wp:
- politics of knowledge production: Five pillars and [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view |NPoV]
- and political knowledge production: Muhammad as example of politics with a small "p" that is the contestation/agreement/common senses about norms and values that guide our societal and collaborative spaces and Genfood as exmaple of politics with a capital "P" that is the ontestation/agreement/common senses about issues that have also some point of reference to the institutional politcial process. Also, I have chosen these two articles as they are issues with transnational scope. Further, aspects of identity politics and international conflicts are shown in the case of the Muhammad-Article while the Genfood-article builds an interesting case for political knowledge production through its very fluid character and the in-built connection (if not dependency) of knowledge and politics.
- I will built for each article a data corpus that is trisectioned: early phase, peak, consolidated phase (from first edit to 31/12/2009). For each article I will select two users who were highly involved in the artcile production and who had conflicting views. --Jojoona (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- In interviews and through talks with Wikipedians I have found that some articles were extremely relevant to my research questions. I have chose two articles per each perspective of analysis that I look at in the en and de wp:
- Will you be able to publish results informally (through a blog or some other mechanism) without formal publication?
- Yes, I plan to write short reports about my resulty in my blog. --Jojoona (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Many people view unsolicited email as an intrusion. I suggest that you initially contact users through their talk pages and obtain their approval to then wp_email them; would that be acceptable to you? Josh Parris 15:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am fine with that though I have made only good experiences with wp-mail in the past as my requests are very specific i.e. linked to specific users. --Jojoona (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thinking about it more and also reading this discussion, I am not sure if private messaging would be the better way for a first contact. What do you think? --Jojoona (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am fine with that though I have made only good experiences with wp-mail in the past as my requests are very specific i.e. linked to specific users. --Jojoona (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've invited more participation via a WP:VPM post. If we don't see more activity in this discussion in the next couple of days, I think we should start a !vote to find consensus. --EpochFail(talk|work) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- No activity in a couple days. I'm starting a poll. --EpochFail(talk|work) 15:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- This process has not been approved, not even for a trial. This request should be closed immediately. Only WP:BAG can approve large-scale messaging operations. Cenarium (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- This proposal is not for a large scale messaging operation. You are getting excited over nothing. --EpochFail(talk|work) 16:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Poll
[edit]- Approve: This recruitment should cause negligible disruption and I'm convinced that the editors preferences are being appropriately considered. --EpochFail(talk|work) 15:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Approve: The study only requires a small recruitment set, and there appear to be no risk to subjects or Wikipedia. -- PiperNigrum (hail|scan) 19:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. I don't foresee any problems with this small number of participants that Jojoona requires. However I would request that Jojoona provides us with a list of the users whom he contacts, including those who decline the e-mail interview. This is so that we (SRAG) can obtain specific feedback from the people approached. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. We shouldn't need to know which individuals, just the number of responses/requests.I'm hesitant to ask for individual usernames since sometimes even participation in a study can be sensitive information, but I don't think that will be a problem here. We'll maximize the amount of feedback we can get by addressing the recruited users directly. --EpochFail(talk|work) 15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)- I think that are important key questions the SRAG is tackling at this point of recruiting. Normally, I give users a chance to remain anonymous also within the community if they do wish so. This issue might be even more sensitive for researchers who directly look at power structures within Wikipedia. Against this backdrop, I would be more than happy if we might discuss this also with other researchers and users on the Wikipedia research summit (wikisym) and the research ethics panel at the Wikimania. --Jojoona (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- After thinking about this more, it has to be up to the subjects themselves whether they wish to have their identities revealed to SRAG. Although I don't want to mess with your recruitment plan, I think that in the future, we should ask recruiting researchers to point their recruited editors to SRAG to share their experiences and ideas. That way, their privacy is in their own hands. --EpochFail(talk|work) 17:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is a good idea to ask researchers to invite the users they interview/study to share their experiences with SRAG but also with Wikipedia:Research. As I posted already on the latter's dicussion page, in this year's Wikimania panel panel on research ethics, methods and policies researchers asked Wikipedians how to recruit users ethically resp. best. Somewhat it was considered as fine if researchers try to find private messaging options whenever possible, while posting on talk pages was discussed. The discussion of this panel will be continued on the mailing list wiki-research-l and it would be great if Wikipedians would express their ideas and concerns. Please join! --Jojoona (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- After thinking about this more, it has to be up to the subjects themselves whether they wish to have their identities revealed to SRAG. Although I don't want to mess with your recruitment plan, I think that in the future, we should ask recruiting researchers to point their recruited editors to SRAG to share their experiences and ideas. That way, their privacy is in their own hands. --EpochFail(talk|work) 17:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that are important key questions the SRAG is tackling at this point of recruiting. Normally, I give users a chance to remain anonymous also within the community if they do wish so. This issue might be even more sensitive for researchers who directly look at power structures within Wikipedia. Against this backdrop, I would be more than happy if we might discuss this also with other researchers and users on the Wikipedia research summit (wikisym) and the research ethics panel at the Wikimania. --Jojoona (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)