3 ms·

I'm genuinely curious how this was positioned to the IRB and if they were clear that what they were actually trying to accomplish was social engineering/manipul

by tw04 6y ago

I'm genuinely curious how this was positioned to the IRB and if they were clear that what they were actually trying to accomplish was social engineering/manipulation. Being a public university, I hope at some point they address this publicly as well as list the steps they are (hopefully) taking to ensure something like this doesn't happen again. I'm also not sure how they can continue to employ the prof in question and expect the open source community to ever trust them to act in good faith going forward.

detaro 6y ago
first statement + commentary from their associate department head: https://twitter.com/lorenterveen/status/1384954220705722369 https://twitter.com/lorenterveen/status/1384954220705722369
- woofie11 6y ago
  Wow. Total sleazeball. This appears to not be his first time with using unintentional research subjects. Source: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=Loren+Terveen+wikipedia&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=Lor... This is quite literally the first point of the Nuremberg code research ethics are based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code#The_ten_points_of_the_Nuremberg_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code#The_ten_points_... This isn't an individual failing. This is an institutional failing. This is the sort of thing which someone ought to raise with OMB. He literally points to how Wikipedia needed to respond when he broke the rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_laboratory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - fourthark 6y ago
    I didn't see any unethical work in a quick scan of the Google Scholar listing. I saw various works on collaboration in Wikipedia. What did you see that offended you?
    - krageon 6y ago
      You realise that the GP went through the trouble to point out that research on people should involve consent, and that they [wikipedia] needed to release a statement saying this. What does that tell you about the situation that gave rise to that statement?
      - fourthark 6y ago
        Got it, and @Tobu's comment describes the issue perfectly. Thanks!
  - Tobu 6y ago
    As far as I can tell, the papers he co-authored on Wikipedia were unlike the abuse of the kernel contribution process that started last year in that they did not involve active experiment, but passive analysis of contribution history. Doesn't mean there aren't ethical issues related to editors being human subjects, but you may want to be more specific.

by tw04 6y ago

detaro 6y ago

first statement + commentary from their associate department head: https://twitter.com/lorenterveen/status/1384954220705722369 https://twitter.com/lorenterveen/status/1384954220705722369

woofie11 6y ago
Wow. Total sleazeball. This appears to not be his first time with using unintentional research subjects. Source: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=Loren+Terveen+wikipedia&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=Lor... This is quite literally the first point of the Nuremberg code research ethics are based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code#The_ten_points_of_the_Nuremberg_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code#The_ten_points_... This isn't an individual failing. This is an institutional failing. This is the sort of thing which someone ought to raise with OMB. He literally points to how Wikipedia needed to respond when he broke the rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_laboratory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- fourthark 6y ago
  I didn't see any unethical work in a quick scan of the Google Scholar listing. I saw various works on collaboration in Wikipedia. What did you see that offended you?
  - krageon 6y ago
    You realise that the GP went through the trouble to point out that research on people should involve consent, and that they [wikipedia] needed to release a statement saying this. What does that tell you about the situation that gave rise to that statement?
    - fourthark 6y ago
      Got it, and @Tobu's comment describes the issue perfectly. Thanks!
- Tobu 6y ago
  As far as I can tell, the papers he co-authored on Wikipedia were unlike the abuse of the kernel contribution process that started last year in that they did not involve active experiment, but passive analysis of contribution history. Doesn't mean there aren't ethical issues related to editors being human subjects, but you may want to be more specific.