Wikiversity talk:Scope of research/Policy

• Just a comment: In cases of significant debate, a review board may be required. --- Does it mean that the review board/review team members may serve as the analogues of expert witness, judge and jury? It would be good if the referees can remain in the first role, and seldom need to play the last role. ---Hillgentleman|書 11:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think members of a research review board would mainly be acting in the role of "expert witness" or "facilitator". Wiki participants with research experience should be able to spot deficiencies in research projects (for example, "this project is not clearly explaining its research methods") and maybe cite published sources describing research methods that could serve as good models for how to move forward with a particular Wikiversity research project. The "judge and jury" is the entire community of wiki editors. --JWSchmidt 16:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

latest (march 2010) edits

I think these clarifications [1] are mostly fine. There is one problem: "Marketing research whose information will either push, promote, improve, or advantage a specific commercial product, service, or political candidate, at the expense of competitors. " You don't get your data before the study. So I think what is in question should rather be the goal and the objectives of the proposed research. <Hillgentleman| ~ | 書> 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)