Research:Beyond the Individual: Community-Engaged Design and Implementation of a Framework for Ethical Online Communities Research/Surveys

Pre-Workshop

The primary purpose of the first survey is two-fold: 1) to asynchronously collect responses about Wikipedia's community values to seed workshop discussions, and 2) to facilitate workshop scheduling. These responses will be analyzed to tailor group activities/discussions during the workshop to Wikipedia-specific values. The secondary purpose of the first survey is also two-fold: to collect demographic information for qualitative reporting, and 2) to collect baseline information on community-engaged metrics for research. Survey responses will only be collected for the small number of respondents needed to obtain 6-12 participants for the following synchronous workshop. Responses of individuals unable to participate for any reason will be discarded and not used in any subsequent analysis.

A. Instructions, Terms, and Consent

Thank you for visiting this survey, which is part of a research project being carried out by a team of technology researchers at the University of Minnesota.

Researchers are not currently equipped to evaluate community-level harms and benefits of potential investigations with online communities. These communities offer people a number of important personal and professional affordances. The purpose of this work is to develop principles for ethically conducting research with online communities that consider the community as a whole. So, how does this workshop work?

Who is eligible to participate?

To participate in this survey, you must:

• be 18 years or older
• be recently or currently an active member of the Wikipedia community (i.e., reading community content at least monthly and potentially contributing your own edits or discussion posts)

What is required of me if I decide to participate?

This one-time survey should only take ~5-10 minutes. If you would like to participate, all you need to do is answer the survey questions by selecting or typing in answers, and that’s it! Completing this pre-workshop questionnaire will make you eligible to participate in a 120-minute workshop with other participants and researchers. We will use your responses to facilitate the scheduling of said workshop in ~3 weeks. You will also need to complete a post-workshop questionnaire to receive your compensation.

The insights we gain from this study will help us further understand the values of and expectations for working with your online community. The university research team will also publish an academic paper on our results to help other researchers support people in recovery and their communities with technology.

Compensation

If you agree to take part in this research study, you will be awarded a $40 digital gift card (your choice of Visa, Target, or Amazon) after completion of the workshop and post-workshop questionnaire.

Will my answers be anonymous?

You will be asked to provide an email to facilitate the scheduling of future workshops, post-workshop questionnaires, digital gift card delivery, and invitations for follow-up studies. All results that are shared with the broader community will be fully anonymized. Video and audio will be recorded during the workshops; the research team will contact you for your consent if they wish to use any identifiable information from the workshop in future publications.

What about confidentiality? Will my information be safe and secure?

We are using a safe, secure online research platform to conduct this survey and the online workshops. Your answers will be stored privately, and will only be accessed by the University of Minnesota research team.

Are there any risks to participation?

The risks for participation in this study are no greater than the risks of discussing your participation and opinions about your online community outside of a research setting. They may include revealing your identity to other conversation participants, feeling uncomfortable with particular topics, or managing conflict or disagreements.

If you decide to take the survey, you may leave at any time. Participation is completely voluntary. If you have questions or comments, please reach out to us at zentx005@umn.edu.

This research has been reviewed and approved by an IRB within the Human Research Protections Program (HRPP). To share feedback privately with the HRPP about your research experience, call the Research Participants’ Advocate Line at 612-625-1650 (Toll Free: 1-888-224-8636) or go to z.umn.edu/participants. You are encouraged to contact the HRPP if:

• Your questions, concerns, or complaints are not being answered by the research team.
• You cannot reach the research team.
• You want to talk to someone besides the research team.
• You have questions about your rights as a research participant.
• You want to get information or provide input about this research.

Do you consent to participate in this study?

1. I have read the survey instructions/terms and consent to participating in this study
2. I do not consent to participating in this study

B. Community Involvement

Tell us about your involvement with Wikipedia.

1. Free text

When you think about the Wikipedia community, what are three different aspects of the community that are important to people on Wikipedia?

In your responses, please consider not only the content on Wikipedia, but also how it is run, how its members treat one another, and anything else that impacts your experience.

1. Free text

(Optional) Are you familiar with any research that has been done on the Wikipedia community? If so, please describe anything you know about what this research was about.

1. Free text

C. Trust

What primary type of trust do you think Wikipedia and the University of Minnesota research team have now?

1. Trust deficit (suspicion). Partnership members do not trust each other.
2. Neutral. Partners are still getting to know each other; there is neither trust nor mistrust.
3. Role-based. Trust is based on member's title or role with limited or no direct interaction.
4. Functional. Partners are working together for a specific purpose and time frame, but mistrust may still be present.
5. Proxy. Partners are trusted because someone who is trusted invited them.
6. Reflective. Trust which allows for mistakes and where differences can be talked about and resolved.

D. Demographics and Scheduling

(Optional) What is your age?

1. Free text

(Optional) How do you describe your gender?

1. Man
2. Woman
3. Non-binary
4. Free text

(Optional) What is the highest level of education you have completed?

1. Did not complete school
2. High school
3. Associate Degree
4. Bachelor's Degree
5. Master's Degree
6. Doctorate Degree

What name did you use to mark your When2Meet availability?

Please use this When2Meet link (Link TBD) to tell us your availability. Please use a name or pseudonym you are comfortability with sharing (it will be visible to other participants).

1. Free text

What is an email we can use to contact you for workshop scheduling and other related correspondence?

1. Free text

Post-Workshop

This survey contains a set of matrix-style questions based on the Community Engagement Survey (CES).

0. Preface

Thank you for participating in the Wikipedia community research workshop. You have been invaluable to this research, and the University of Minnesota research team extends our deepest gratitude for the time and effort you've committed. The purpose of this survey is two-fold: 1) to obtain your compensation preferences, and 2) to get asynchronous feedback on the preliminary results from the research workshop.

First, you'll fill out your gift card preferences. Then, you'll gain access to the workshop summary document and have the opportunity to leave comments. Any and all insights, reflections, questions, or concerns are greatly appreciated. Our goal is to best reflect your voices and ideas in this research. Finally, we'll ask a few questions about your experiences during this research workshop.

A. Feedback

Thank you for all the time and effort you've contributed to this research. How would you like to receive your compensation ($40 gift card)?

1. Visa gift card
2. Target gift card
3. Amazon gift card

We documented the outcomes of this workshop for you to review. We value your perspective. Please read this workshop summary <link TBD> and attach it to your email submission with inline comments.

1. I have read the workshop summary and provided feedback where applicable

(Optional) Do you have any additional feedback on any elements of the workshop, survey, or research partnership?

1. Free text

(Optional) Are you interested in future research opportunities related to Wikipedia?

1. Yes
2. No

B. How well does the University of Minnesota research team create positive dialog with participating Wikipedia partners?

In your responses, please consider your experiences working with the University of Minnesota research team and other participating Wikipedia partners during the Wikipedia community research workshop.

Matrix with 1-6 scale (Not at all --> To a complete extent) for each question

1. The participating Wikipedia partners have the knowledge, skills, and confidence to interact effectively with the University of Minnesota research team.
2. The University of Minnesota research team has members who are from a similar background as the participating Wikipedia partners.
3. The University of Minnesota research team has the knowledge, skills, and confidence to interact effectively with the participating Wikipedia partners.

C. How much do you agree or disagree that conversations between the University of Minnesota research team and participating Wikipedia members where:

In your responses, please consider your experiences working with the University of Minnesota research team and other participating Wikipedia partners during the Wikipedia community research workshop.

Matrix with 1-7 scale (Completely disagree --> To a Completely agree) for each question

1. We show positive attitudes towards one another.
2. Everyone in our workshop participated.
3. We listen to each other.
4. When conflicts occur, we work together to resolve them.
5. Even when we don't have total agreement, we reach a kind of consensus that we all accept.
6. The dialogue is dominated by the perspectives of the University of Minnesota Research team.

D. How much impact do you have working with the University of Minnesota research team?

In your responses, please consider your experiences working with the University of Minnesota research team and other participating Wikipedia partners during the Wikipedia community research workshop.

Matrix with 1-7 scale (Completely disagree --> To a Completely agree) for each question

1. Suggestions I make about this research are seriously considered.
2. I have influence over decisions that are made from this workshop.
3. My involvement influences the partnership to be more responsive to the community.
4. I am able to influence the work on this project.

E. How much do you agree or disagree that Wikipedia community members:

In your responses, please consider your experiences working with the University of Minnesota research team and other participating Wikipedia partners during the Wikipedia community research workshop.

Matrix with 1-7 scale (Completely disagree --> To a Completely agree) for each question

1. Have increased participation in the research process.
2. Are able to talk about the project with groups or in settings, such as community or political meetings.
3. Can apply the findings of the research to practices and programs in the community.
4. Can voice their opinions about research in front of researchers.
5. Have the capacity or power to promote research that will benefit the community.

F. What primary type of trust do you think Wikipedia and the University of Minnesota research team have now?

1. Trust deficit (suspicion). Partnership members do not trust each other.
2. Neutral. Partners are still getting to know each other; there is neither trust nor mistrust.
3. Role-based. Trust is based on member's title or role with limited or no direct interaction.
4. Functional. Partners are working together for a specific purpose and time frame, but mistrust may still be present.
5. Proxy. Partners are trusted because someone who is trusted invited them.
6. Reflective. Trust which allows for mistakes and where differences can be talked about and resolved.