Grants:IdeaLab/Impacts on lives of the banned
gmail.com• ResearchBizgmail.com
Project idea
What is the problem you're trying to solve?
Over the years, Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects have indoctrinated admins who sometimes have attitudes that don't foster harmony on the projects. If an editor is seen to have a disruptive disposition, sometimes the admin response is "block now, ask questions later" or, even worse, "the blocked individual is not entitled to ask questions". This can lead to some blocked (or banned) individuals to only escalate their response, in a manner that is only further antagonistic toward the Wiki community. No reputable study has ever examined the blocked, shunned, and banned individual -- studies always seem to focus on the "remaining" community members who are seen as "in good standing". This project would reverse that gap in our knowledge of community harmony dynamics.
What is your solution?
This impact study will endeavor to qualitatively survey at least 20 different people who have been blocked or banned from participating on Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects. The research will conform loosely to a scripted discussion guide, and respondents will be compensated appropriately for their time (e.g., $40 for a one-hour, in-depth interview). Presumably, the study coordinators will volunteer their time and resources.
Project goals
The project will help to characterize how being blocked or banned from Wikimedia projects impacts the individual, including personal emotional ramifications (shame, anger, etc.), social effects (e.g., how former promoters become detractors), career disruption (tension in the workplace, or even termination from employment), and more.
The deliverables on this project will include:
- Topline summary report of common findings among the n=20 sample
- Background and methodology information
- Transcripts (either verbatim or detailed summary) of each interview
- Word clouds to help visualize common themes that emerge from the discussions
- Recommendations for process/community improvement in the blocking and banning process, from the perspective of the blocked
Get involved
Participants
Endorsements
- There has never really been a good study which I can find of the effects of blocking/banning people from Wikipedia. This is surprising, since it is such a commonly used procedure. They are also not considered (by definition) in surveys which are conducted via banners on Wikipedia. Kingsindian (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Bgwhite and Yngvadottir: On the subject of remuneration, perhaps I can point out earlier research carried out by the Yochai Benkler among others, carried out in cooperation with the WMF, where they offered payments to participants and they allowed them to donate the money to the WMF or a charity of their choice if they wish to. Kingsindian (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC) Kingsindian (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am also wondering how participants in this project can stand by idly when the Wikimedia Foundation pays its former Executive Director $300,000 just to stick around for a year and "dig up files" and "advise the new director", but then balk at paying regular folks $40 to give an hour of their time. It's just striking me as an extremely petty concern. - Thekohser (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Bgwhite and Yngvadottir: On the subject of remuneration, perhaps I can point out earlier research carried out by the Yochai Benkler among others, carried out in cooperation with the WMF, where they offered payments to participants and they allowed them to donate the money to the WMF or a charity of their choice if they wish to. Kingsindian (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC) Kingsindian (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea, but not in the execution. Many blocks/bans are deserved. However, in too many cases, the time sentenced is too harsh or the block/ban is not warranted. I have seen the ill effects on other's mental state and the enthusiasm to continue editing. Thekosher has a good idea in getting more information. I do think 20 is too small of a sample size and I'm not comfortable in paying people. There will be bias as you are talking to people about a negative event. But these types of surveys are asked to people who got fired from their job, for example. Most of these issues can be mitigated by asking professional surveyor's help in setting up the study. Bgwhite (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is a professional surveyor setting up the study, one with 25 years of experience in the field, having executed approximately 1,000 different research surveys in his career. Also, you may wish to read up] on how "quantitative researchers often fail to understand the usefulness of studying small samples". Let's not fall into that trap. Marshall conducted viable qualitative research with samples of 10 or 24 respondents (in the latter case, he found that new themes ceased to emerge after the first 15 completed interviews). - Thekohser (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thekohser First, let me say I think this is a great idea and one that
shouldmust be done. I'm not trying to disparage. I don't see anywhere on the page who will be doing the survey except "organizers". First time making a comment on one of these, so I don't know if something is to be assumed or I'm being my usual idiot self. - I stand by 20 being too small. Not only will it minimize bias, but hopefully will get better results. Generally, one does not do a random sample in quantitative research. So, one "chooses" how many to sample based on method of sampling, time allotted, questions asked, when data saturation happens, etc. With so many variants on the how, why and types of blocks, I think 20 is not near data saturation, but 100 is too many. This also alleviates the main concerns expressed by Yngvadottir and TParis. Bgwhite (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thekohser First, let me say I think this is a great idea and one that
- There is a professional surveyor setting up the study, one with 25 years of experience in the field, having executed approximately 1,000 different research surveys in his career. Also, you may wish to read up] on how "quantitative researchers often fail to understand the usefulness of studying small samples". Let's not fall into that trap. Marshall conducted viable qualitative research with samples of 10 or 24 respondents (in the latter case, he found that new themes ceased to emerge after the first 15 completed interviews). - Thekohser (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
- Note to reader: Other Grant idea pages do not typically feature an "Opposition" section. This one is being left in place, in the spirit of giving the opposition a voice -- which, ironically, is exactly what this Grant idea is all about.
- 20 participants isn't enough to gain real insight into this. It's more inclined to be an avenue of getting grudges openly aired and settling scores. Especially if selection bias plays into the picture in the selection process. But more importantly, I don't see how this will at all be helpful. Administrators and editors are volunteers and even if we find a gentler kinder way to block disruptive users, no volunteer should be obligated to follow it. We shouldn't be adding more tasks and responsibilities to productive editors at the behest of disruptive editors.--TParis (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Real insight" can be gained from just one interview. Since the goals of this research do not include unblocking or unbanning users, I'm not sure how any scores will be settled. I'm disappointed that you are unable to see how giving the shunned a brief voice could be helpful at all. Nothing in the research plan suggests that more tasks and responsibilities will be added for productive editors. Indeed, I could see numerous ways by which the recommendations might lead to fewer tasks and responsibilities for productive editors -- for example, what if an outcome is to suggest that all blocking and banning responsibilities be transferred to a small team of paid staff members of the Wikimedia Foundation? - Thekohser (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned about selection bias, and that this will be magnified by the financial reward. I'd like to draw attention to one such problem that may not occur to the proposer or to others who edit under or otherwise reveal their names: many contributors to the movement require anonymity, which is the primary advantage of registering an account; protecting their identity is presumably all the more a concern for many banned contributors; but the interview modes that are foreseen will destroy anonymity, all the more so if the organisers are expecting to send someone a cheque or otherwise remunerate them. I also wonder about the hard limit on number of interviews, which as TParis says, will limit the usefulness of the research. Combined with a monetary reward, it's going to magnify the effects of self-selection. First past the post to claim $40 doesn't seem promising to me, although I'm impressed by the proposer's qualifications in the field. Scrap the idea of the (rather big) reward, replace by a multi-pronged effort to identify and reach banned contributors (including LTA IP editors), and consider a token reward to go either to the person or to a charity of their choice. The grant would then go much further, including covering a range of interview modalities (I'd urge the use of open-ended questions including an attempt to discover what the bannee in question defines as harassment) and remuneration for the data-crunching that would be required. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that the proposed sampling will introduce undue selection bias? Can you point to any academic literature that demonstrates that a direct incentive of $40 for an hour of the subject's commitment will magnify that bias? (An equally valid case could be made for saying that if no incentive were provided, that would bias the sample away from people who don't want to commit an hour of their valuable time for free.) As for anonymity, that may be a concern for some. However, there are plenty of indefinitely blocked or banned editors who have no concerns about identifying themselves publicly. Those who wish to remain anonymous can ask for their remuneration to be directed to a charity of their choosing. "Data crunching" is not a part of this study design, as it is a qualitative approach. - Thekohser (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Expand your idea
Would a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation help make your idea happen? You can expand this idea into a grant proposal.
Activities
The organizers will seek out 20 different individuals who have been indefinitely blocked or community banned from a Wikimedia project. They will participate in a one-hour in-depth interview to assemble qualitative insights into the emotional, social, and occupational impacts on the blocked or banned individual. We will communicate the project to various noticeboards that are appropriate on Wikipedia and other sites, including sites where blocked or banned individuals gather (such as Wikipediocracy.com). At the end of the project, there will be deliverables of a topline summary report of common findings among the n=20 sample, background and methodology information, transcripts (either verbatim or detailed summary) of each interview, word clouds to help visualize common themes that emerge from the discussions, and recommendations for process/community improvement in the blocking and banning process, from the perspective of the blocked.
Impact
Total participants would be 20 respondents, plus 5 to 7 volunteer organizers. Success would be measured in how many of the report recommendations are actually trialed or implemented by various Wikimedia project communities.
Resources
The project designer is a market research professional (Fortune 50 company experience) with private certification in qualitative information gathering techniques. Additional resources would be helpful in the area of set-up of telecommunication (perhaps video-conferencing), to facilitate one-on-one and perhaps group-on-one interviewing environments.
Funding would underwrite:
- Respondent incentives ($40 per each of twenty interviews -- subtotal $800)
- Telecommunications fees (ranging from free to perhaps $200)