h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

D''you know Ben, I never thought you were the sort of person who'd say one thing to a person's subscribed conversations, and a different thing in two conversations I'm not subscribed to.

You could just *ask* me why I'm spikey, instead of assuming I've got gutrot and so I'm being snotty. I've got good reasons for disliking this going on, and for me it's nothing to do with what went on in PR. I'd totally forgotten about that.

Hello everyone,

I wanted to thank you for helping us all out, and getting things clarified.

MTBC:

>> Be yourselves, and you'll learn a lot more.

Could you please explain that a little more?

Mina,

This is full list of people I've contacted:

1. Galaxy Babe (U128652)
2. Loosely Lately Waz (U123301)
3. Hoovooloo (U114627)
4. ~jwf~ (offsite, through email. I've already IMd with him)
5. Lucinda (offsite, through email. I've already conducted an interview with him)

You may cross check with these people if you please. You were also concerned about our privacy policy (which is part of the consent form we require people to sign before we interview them): please take a look at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2005/cs6470_spring/researchstudy/webconsent_h2g2_study.html

regards,
arvind

minor correction: I've IMd with Hoo, and exchanged emails with jwf

Mina, there isn't a contradiction, though there is complexity, which can appear to be the same thing sometimes.

1) I respect you and I respect your history on the site, and your experience in other communities.

2) I have stated that there may be things that I am not aware of that are influencing what you are doing and saying here.

3) When you check the links provided by these guys, it is clear that they are as legit as it is possible to verify without locating their educational establishment through a third party and contacting it. I checked the links and it really appears that you hadn't at the time that you were posting and yikesing.

4) I think that you have massively over-reacted to a group of people who have behaved responsibly, and have taken the view that they are guilty until proven innocent. Personally, I think that they have done everything anyone reasonably could to prove themselves innnocent.

5) There are any number of reasons why anyone would behave so uncharactaristically, and I have come to associate more care and good sense with you than you are showing at the moment. Those reasons vary from the medical to the comedic, (my grandmother always used to say "maybe their shoes pinch"). They include the crap that happens to all of us in daily life. I have no idea why you have reacted the way that you have, other than what you have said, and to be honest, I cannot see that anything you have said justifies itself. I may be missing some points here, and I apologise if I am.

6) If you wanted to reach the students, why didn't you do what I did, follow the links to their spaces, and either post there or post in conversations they had - very politely - joined? Why send 'messages' by yikesing posts which explained their modus operandi?

Mina, I respect you, but the way that you have responded to this seems uncharactaristically hasty, to be honest, so it has left me confused and rather surprised. But we do all have off days, if you will forgive me for saying so. I know that I have posted in haste here before now, and I would lay bets I'll do it again. (Maybe I am doing it now!)

Ben

another (not so minor) correction: i'd also contacted Reefgirl (U190551)

for an example of our modus operandi, and our reasons for doing phone interviews, please check:

F2016616?thread=587925

and

F35246?thread=599055

thanks,
arvind

"another (not so minor) correction: i'd also contacted Reefgirl (U190551)"

Yeah. Good luck with that.

B

avenkat, what's your sampling method? There's no way you could use random sampling, you don't seem to have used opportunity sampling, there's been, as far as I am aware, no attempt on your part to use any stratified or proportional representational of the users, you haven't used a self selecting sample, so how did you pick?

I would never let my own research students be this slapdash in their sampling. It would cause too many problems with the reliability and validity of the project. I teach students that if a project has no validity they can't continue.

I believe the intention of these guys is to build up an accurate picture of what makes the Community tick and function, rather than to build up a random cross-section of opinions.

To do this, they would clearly be better off questioning experienced and/or heavy-use Researchers, rather than random sampling.

B

Our sampling method is correlated with our research questions; the primary question we have is how the edited & unedited sections of the guide stand with respect to each other, and how they are perceived amongst the community. There are other questions too, but they are secondary, and explored only if opportunity permits.

We aren't attempting to sample all types of members (both for reasons mentioned above and for project constraints). So, stratified or random samples are out of the question. Self selecting samples might have been used, but we wished to control whom we approached, considering the fact that we have a limited time period in which to complete this study, and the fact that we intend to do only 3 phone interviews per research member for a total of 9 interviews - self selection might have overwhelmed us. Thus, our sampling method was to look for people

a. who'd been a long term member of the site with many contributions, or at least much involvement/engagement with the site that might indicate that they care about it
b. people holding posts (sub editors, aces, miners, polishers)
c. people expressing opinion about the guidelines, or opinions about their choice in submitting to the
d. people who have been instrumental in forming organizations that support writing in both parts of the guide, or in community building

Thus, if you look at the people we've selected for interviews, you will notice that some of them are founding members of the AGG/CAC, some of them are extensively involved with the Underguide, some of them are ACEs, some others have ranted about the guidelines, and one has actually left the guide and no longer actively contributes, despite having been an enthusiastic writer earlier.

We are aware that our study might not produce results that are totally valid. Large chunks of our study will, in fact, be based on our own observations about the design of the site measured on parameters that are meaningful to us, and will secondarily be informed by the views of the interviewees, and stories about h2g2 that they tell us.

I hope that makes sense.

So, you've chosen people to interview who you think will give you the answers you already think you know.

It makes perfect sense to me, thank you.

Sir,

I do not understand how selecting interviewees who have expressed opinions about the nature of the guidelines makes us out to be selecting samples that support our hypothesis. Two reasons:

1. We don't have a hypothesis. This is a descriptive research project
2. Contrary to what you may expect, I have received two completely different views of the EG vs unedited Guide from the two interviews i have had a chance to conduct. Both were long term members of the this site.

regards,

arvind

1) If you don't have a hypothesis, do you have an aim?
2) 2 views taken from one particular section of the site which has 1000+ active researchers still seems like poor sampling to me. Especially since you claim one of the sample doesn't even visit h2g2 any more.
3) I'm no sir.

1. yes, we do have an aim: primarily, in determining how the writing guidelines support, or fail to support, collaborative writing. secondarily, in determining how the structure of the site supports or fails to support community behaviour. tertially, in discovering interesting experiences about online communities.

2. Yes, 2 views out of 1000+ active researchers, or 252,732 total members since 1999 is a laughably small fraction. But, as I've said before, we don't have the time to sample in a stratified way. We *could* have completely avoided sampling, and performed the study simply by participating in all aspects of the process ourselves, but that would have not generated the amount of data we would like, and would take too long, besides. Long term/intensely involved members involved in *both* aspects of the guide (edited, unedited) would be able to tell us the kind of stories we think can give us the data we need

We have also tried to get in touch with the management for their views: first, by offsite personal contacts of mine (which you don't know about), and second, onsite (which you do know about), which failed until recently because of *our inability* to do so.

There's another aspect to sampling question: we are not interested in saying things like "53% of the members felt that..." or "the average rate of production of edited entries has been....". For that same reason, sampling is less a concern than rigourous analysis of the interview data & our experiences. If we wanted to generate results of the type above, we would have used surveys, we would have gone around collecting statistics, and we would simply not have bothered asking people for phone interviews (is that asking for trouble or what?)

Thanks for taking time to explain your approach, Arvind.

Coley, let me refer you to Amy's post here F1599167?thread=601688 where she confirms their academic credentials. She expresses doubts about the sampling method, but to be honest that is none of our business, being a matter between Amy Bruckman, her grad-students, and the peers who review the paper when it is published. I should add that it is clear to me that Amy was unnecessarily worried about their engagement with the ethics and privacy issues, where they have showed clear understanding of the issues and processes involved.

What I find myself wondering, is how much of this is a storm in a cup?

It feels very much to me as if someone who wasn't approached directly stumbled across one of the posts, (which really would have been none of their business if it was not addressed to them), got a snit on, and instead of pulling the post, (which was almost certainly not in fact pullable), started saying that they were spamming (they weren't) and implied that they are school children (they aren't) and that they had posted requests for phone numbers on line (they didn't).

My guess is that the thing snowballed from there, with very few of the people who have been complaining most loudly actually checking the sources, ie the U-Spaces of Arvind, Britt, and Madhur, the links they posted there and the conversations that they started on the site.

He said, "she said, 'they thought, "we felt that he meant, 'Send three and fourpence, I am going to a dance',",',"...

I think they were being slandered, to be honest, by inference if not directly; and in my opinion they are owed apologies by several people here.

But that's just my .

Ben

Oh good grief.

So Avenkat will we hootooers get to see an online copy of your project when finished?

Certainly: as I've said here: F22865?thread=601803 and here: F33492?thread=602090, I'd be more than happy writing about my experiences researching the researchers, and making a copy of my report (which is a class submission, btw, not yet an academic paper) publicly available.