[open-science] Publishing curated email lists

[Stacy Konkiel]

William, I agree that everyone who communicates publicly on the internet
should be more aware of what exactly that means for discoverability of the
data they share. But there are plenty of cases where it's problematic to
assume that just because something's shared publicly (whether on purpose or
because the sharer didn't know better or couldn't *not* share it publicly)
that it's always justifiable to make it more public, in a sense, by making
it more discoverable. If that's a "delusional" thought to have, then I
guess I count myself along other delusionals like Kate Crawford, danah
boyd, and (in an extreme example) everyone who spoke out after the recent
OKCupid/OSF data archiving kerfuffle.

Alexandre, I agree that the internet is not always (nor always should be) a
public place. Where we seem to diverge is in who is responsible for
protecting data. Until now, the onus has always been on individuals to seek
out certain forums or use pseudonyms to ensure their own privacy. I believe
that, moving forward, companies that reuse others' data can design
thoughtful approaches to data collection/curation where the default allows
for openness and transparency but where individuals can also retain the
right to decide where and how they want their data shared. What Josh is
currently thinking through represents such an approach, IMHO.

You do bring up a good point, though, one that has come up in internal
conversations at Altmetric: where does one's rights over their own words
supersede the common good (which in this case would be the amplifying of
important conversations re: open science)? If heated debates captured on
listservs could form the basis of important future research (or heck, even
simply extend current debates beyond the confines of a listerv), *should*
one be able to opt-out of having their words captured?

That's up for debate. Much like you, I don't claim to hold the final truth
(no one holds it, tbh). But I do think this is an important conversation to
have (esp. when we think about its implications for the practice of open
science using publicly available data, including and beyond the great idea
that Josh has proposed). And I don't think that companies who make efforts
in this area are necessarily spitting in the wind.


All best,
Stacy

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:07 PM, William Waites <ww at eris.okfn.org> wrote:

>
> Stacy Konkiel <stacy at altmetric.com> writes:
>
> > a conversation where some participants perhaps wouldn't want their
> > responses shared verbatim... For some, it's one thing to have your
> > emails buried in a listserv archive... it's another thing entirely for
> > a company to reuse your emails, make them more discoverable...
> > surfaces conversations that technically happen in public but take
> > place with a certain expectation of "privacy through obscurity"
>
> Sorry, but this kind of thinking is delusional. If anything making these
> conversations more discoverable is a public service because it makes the
> delusion more obvious, and given time, hopefully people will learn that
> if you don't want your words reused, don't utter them in public and if
> you don't want them attributed to you, use a pseudonym.
>
> The Internet is a public place. It has always been so. Wishing it wasn't
> won't change it. Indeed this is the root cause of the distress of many
> who feel that their privacy has been violated on the Internet (yes,
> there are privacy violations that also stem from other causes, but they
> are vastly fewer). If you communicate with expectations that are contrary
> to the nature of the medium that you have chosen, expect disappointment.
>
> Best wishes,
> -w
>
>


-- 
Stacy Konkiel
Outreach & Engagement Manager at Altmetric <http://altmetric.com>
     working from enchanting New Mexico, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20160623/40854a57/attachment-0003.html>