And boy,
did they get it.
The survey, led by Stanford prof Sarah Gilbert, asked a number of questions about people who had recently been banned.
It took me 2/3 of the screens to get to that part, and I told them straightforwardly.
That said, I did NOT notice at first in the chat message that this was being shared with mods at r/askhistorians.
I am going to quote the full chat message:
CivilServantBot
12:30 PM Participate in a Cornell survey to study community norms and participation in AskHistorians
Hi TheSocraticGadfly,
We are a group of researchers at Cornell University who are working with the mods of r/AskHistorians on a survey that will help us understand the relationship between community rules, norms and participation.
You have been randomly selected to participate in the survey because you were either temporarily or permanently banned in r/AskHistorians in the last six months and we are interested in learning your perspective.
The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete and will ask questions about your participation patterns in r/AskHistorians,
why you participate(d), your perception of its community norms, your
experience with algorithmically generated content and recommender
systems, and demographic questions. We will not ask you for personally
identifiable information. The survey has been approved by Cornell’s IRB:
IRB0149466 and will be open until January 4 2026.
If you would like to proceed with the survey, click on the following link: https://cornell.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7OqguxY50t1Ed2S
If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to the lead researcher, Dr. Sarah Gilbert on Reddit via DM to u/SarahAGilbert or email sarah.gilbert@cornell.edu.
Or, you can contact Cornell’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for
Human Participants at 607-255-6182 or access their website at https://researchservices.cornell.edu/offices/IRB.
We will share survey results on r/AskHistorians and our website at citizensandtech.org
Thank you for your consideration!
Note: this message was sent by a bot. To receive a timely response,
please do not respond to this message and instead reach out to Dr.
Gilbert or Cornell’s IRB.
Back to where I was.
Not noticing the sharing with mods?
That's on me.
I also did NOT notice — BECAUSE it wasn't listed — that Gilbert herself is a mod there. In fact, earning some Reddit scrolling bananas, it appears that, per her profile, that's the ONLY place she has any real activity. I went back six months ago, and that's the ONLY sub she was active on. AND, her only activity there, even, was as a mod dropping the banhammer.
That's on them, and per the chat, IMO, that nondisclosure is academically unethical.
It also means the research isn't blinded.
I did indeed contact the IRB. On Dec. 9, right after realizing this. They replied, saying that they would review the issue and decide if further action were warranted. I responded, asking to be informed if further action were taken and what it was, OR if no further action were taken and if so, why not. Stay tuned.
And, if they don't respond to me by Jan. 4? Given the animus from the current presidential administration to higher education in America, I'm sure I can find the appropriate agency within the current Department of Education to contact.
Update: I emailed back again on Jan. 4 my original respondent, and said:
Dear. Mr. Gideon:
Today is Jan. 4, the cutoff date for the Reddit research project. I've heard nothing further from you or the IRB chair to learn what, if any, additional action may be warranted. Even if "none," I don't like being left in the dark.
Assuming that further "no answer" = "none," I will take possible further steps on my own as I deem warranted.
And, I already know what my possible next steps will be.
Update, Jan. 6: TLDR is Mr. Gideon admits the research kind of screwed the pooch but they're moving on and so should I:
Thank you again for contacting our IRB office with your concern about a Cornell human participant research study. My team has looked into this, and the approved IRB protocol did include the information that Dr. Gilbert is a moderator for one of the subreddits from which she and her collaborators planned to recruit participants; however, only some of the approved recruitment materials made this explicit. The research team has since amended their protocol to make this extra clear for future rounds of recruitment.
I am then offered this:
One other important, relevant note: while some specific Reddit users such as yourself were targeted with an invitation to participate in this study, the actual survey is completely anonymous, with no link between Reddit usernames or other personally identifiable information and survey responses. There is no way for Dr. Gilbert to know what specific Reddit users said in response to the survey. That is also now being made explicitly clear in subsequent informed consent materials for this study.
Still no bueno. I probably wouldn't have participated, even if anonymized (theoretically, in actuality, this is the internet) and even if I had, would not have given the in-depth answers I did. (Gilbert and I are both on Reddit after all, still.) That said, it is interesting that Cornell recognizes this wasn't totally clear at the start.
I guess Cornell really is for the birds?
And, beyond questionable academic ethics, re not junking the replies already obtained from people like me who didn't know Gilbert was/is a moderator?
There's the questionable ethics period of lack of trust.
US DOE doesn't really have a forum for reporting something like this; I will see what might be available in the way of private-sector monitoring agencies.
