[open-science] Publishing curated email lists

[Josh Nicholson]

Hi Thomas,

I agree with your points.  At this point I feel that there is a ton of great information shared on these lists but that it is largely inaccessible due to the formatting and presentation of it.  I was hoping to change this but there appear to be numerous hurdles with participation/implementation and I don’t want to force people to have their emails published.

What I propose doing is curating these on a collaborative writing platform like Authorea and inviting members of the list to view/edit it.  I will then only go forth with publishing if I get agreement from those on the thread.  I think this should be fair to all parties involved.  Still, it presents a problem if one or two members of the thread do not wish to participate as it can make the thread unclear.

Best,
Josh

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:27:58 +0100
> From: Thomas Kluyver <takowl at gmail.com>
> To: open-science <open-science at lists.okfn.org>
> Subject: Re: [open-science] Publishing curated email lists
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAOvn4qj9vxKVWs3g-0nEiCX=jgFn2SpRB3KrrE+JMGMD8qriPQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On 21 June 2016 at 17:28, Stacy Konkiel <stacy at altmetric.com> wrote:
> 
>> One thing I would suggest is having an opt-out mechanism available for
>> those who don't want their email(s) shared publicly.
>> 
>> It may seem counter-intuitive--I think we all know that most email lists
>> are hardly private--but I also think that for many there's an unspoken
>> expectation of "this will stay on this list".
> 
> 
> I understand the intention here to offer a kind of privacy, but I'd worry
> about offering some kind of 'opt out' on a public list (both publicly
> archived and open to anyone to subscribe):
> 
> 1. There's a risk that the existence of an opt out gives people the idea
> that their posts are private if they opt out of publication, when in fact
> they're still completely public, just maybe not so obvious.
> 2. It creates an ambiguous situation around the messages of people who
> opted out. It's public, but you can't... make it too public? What if
> someone made a nicer interface to the mailman archives that invited more
> attention? What if a journalist wanted to quote messages from a mailing
> list? What would the opt out actually mean?
> 3. How can you sensibly archive conversations where a key participant has
> opted out, especially if people quote them in replies? Does anyone involved
> in a conversation effectively have veto power to prevent re-archiving that
> conversation?
> 
> Thomas
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20160622/e7adede8/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of open-science Digest, Vol 870, Issue 1
> ********************************************