4 ms·

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_s

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.

4 ms·

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_s

by woofie11 6y ago

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.