I would like to have a discussion on the implications of ...
... Facebook's Emotional Manipulation Study for Galaxy Zoo, and citizen science in general.
In which section should I kick it off, Science Powered by Citizens, or Chat?
Well, I know, that this actually isn't the discussion topic, but I just want to inform about following article.:
Some thoughts about human subjects research in the wake of Facebook’s massive experiment
By Janet D. Stemwedel, Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University
June 30, 2014
I started followig topic in the"Chat Board".:
Has Galaxy Zoo an IRB Approval?
by ElisabethB moderator
Is Galaxy Zoo or the Zooniverse in any way implicated or mentioned in this article or "study" ? If not, why is this relevant in any way ?
Any thoughts ?
The Forum closed before this discussion ended. It has implications about citizen's rights.
Quote from: joi2cjoi on July 06, 2014, 11:04:23 pm
Under what circumstances is it ok for the staff or mods to remove the hashtag symbol (#) from discussions in Talk?
Well to be honest I think it's best if you ask one of the moderators on Talk. I don't think you will find an answer to this from anyone official here. I think the main goal of this thread is for suggestions.
But I can guess for you. My best guess would be: it is always okay for mods to do this. Please remember that the forums are run by volunteers and you wouldn't be able to use it without them. I don't think many of us are pros at this, but we do as we think is best. If you disagree with a decision, you can always ask for an explanation of course but as you do so, please remember that mods are people too. And although we value every contribution to the project, please also remember that sometimes we will have to stick to a decision which you disagree with. It is then up to you if you want to accept that or not.
I hope that helps.
My best guess would be: it is always okay for mods to do this.
If it is ok to modify discussions (or posts) then what is the point of posting at all?
The point of introducing a hashtag is to provide a meta-dataset of classification terms.
If someone corrupts the data by removing hashtags then the data becomes skewed
and is unusable. The term "discussion" is subjective but the hashtags ARE arguably
objective for the sake of meta-analysis.
So if it is ok to remove one hashtag then is it ok to remove over 1,000? What is the
point of taking the time to participate and add the special character of someone with
a bias agenda is able to corrupt the process?
One can select data as one chooses in a program and eliminate data before analysis.
There is no reason or excuse for redacting hashtagged data elements in discussions.
Joi2cjoi, I can't comment on the content of your message, as I don't know enough about Talk. However, if I did know, I would tell you we could take up the conversation in private. So if anyone does know and want to comment, I urge them to do so privately too! You are entiteled to your opinion, of course, but I tried to make clear that although you can make suggestions, it is not your call. You can decide whether or not you accept what has been decided, of course, and I wish you the best with that.
As I responded to you in the first place, it is only fair to accept your response to that, but as a mod I want to close the discussion about this (in this thread) now. If you still feel the need to discuss this further, please contact the right people privately.
Els, can I have a crash course in Talk soon please?
Els, joi2cjoi was blocked from Talk, not the Forum, after this exchange. Perhaps Zutopian is asking about how a conversation might proceed without staff/mod’s censorship? Perhaps a third party site might be the solution? Citizens can ask questions in a free “Forum” protected from harsh reprisals.
By the way, is it ok to change over 1,000 discussions without permission from the citizen who made the discussion?
by Capella05 moderator
This thread is locked pending investigation.
It is suspected that @scicit0 is a sock puppet of 2 previously banned users.