19 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2019
  2. Aug 2019
  3. Oct 2018
    1. Anyone can open up Twitter and instantly know what the world is gabbing about from minute to minute, all day long, across thousands of electronic sources that are instantly available all over the globe.

      But we don't get the journalistic criticism of the coverage, who's doing it better, who's more thorough, etc. We're still missing that.

    2. That enterprising writer could read the papers the moment they went online in the wee hours, summarize their lead stories and other juicy pieces, and post this briefing on Slate before the paperboys could toss physical copies onto driveways in Middle America’s cul-de-sacs.

      For me, it wasn't so much the summary, but who was it that had the best coverage. It was the comparison of the coverage. I read most of the particular stories anyway.

    1. As a matter of recourse, some students in the study “read the news laterally,” meaning they used sources elsewhere on the Internet to compare versions of a story in an attempt to verify its facts, bias, and ultimately, its credibility.25

      This reminds me how much I miss the old daily analysis that Slate use to do for the day's top news stories in various outlets in their Today's Papers segmet.

  4. Jan 2018
  5. Dec 2017
    1. generated by research stemming back over the previous 20 years.

      There should be unique identifiers on various levels of participant inputs, so that things from REF2014 can be referenced unambiguously in REF2021.

    2. REF also stipulates precise measurement periods for the impact of research, broadly amounting to impact occurring in the seven years between assessments, generated by research stemming back over the previous 20 years. Impact however can take many years to achieve (Hughes and Martin, 2012) and reflections on the REF 2014 have thus raised concerns over short-termism

      I think the REF2021 should have a "check-in" section for assessing the "change in impact" of research reported in REF2014.

    3. disproportionately positive corpus of impact knowledge

      Does "positive" mean "benefits given through research"? Does "positive" also include "mitigation of negative effects"?

    4. Whilst commercialisation and technology transfer have become well-established practices globally since the passage of the US Bayh Dole Act in 1981, such unidirectional approaches cannot be simply replicated in non-commercial, socially complex settings

      Many times, the non-commercial, socially-complex setting is exactly the setting in which a particular commercialized technology is meant to be deployed!

    5. short-termism

      I've heard the term "tactical" used for short-term thinking and "strategic" used for long-term thinking.

  6. Nov 2017
  7. Aug 2017
  8. Oct 2016
  9. Sep 2016
    1. The Gamma: Programming tools for data journalism

      (b) languages for novices or end-users, [...] If we can provide our climate scientists and energy engineers with a civilized computing environment, I believe it will make a very significant difference.

      But data journalists, and in fact, data activist, social scientist, and so on, could be a "different type of novice", one that is more critically and politically involved (in the broader sense of the "politic" word).

      The wider dialogue on important matters that is mediated, backed up and understood by dealing data, (as climate change) requires more voices that the ones are involved today, and because they need to be reason and argument using data, we need to go beyond climate scientist or energy engeeners as the only ones who need a "civilized computing environment" to participate in the important complex and urgent matters of today world. Previously, these more critical voices (activists, journalists, scientists) have helped to make policy makers accountable and more sensible on other important and urgent issues.

      In that sense my work with reproducible research in my Panama Papers as a prototype of a data continuum environment, or others, like Gamma, could serve as an exploration, invitation and early implementation of what is possible to enrich this data/computing enhanced dialogue.

  10. Jun 2016
    1. In rare cases, a questionable, published paper may acquire“orphan” status (Rennie & Flanagin, 1994, p. 469), as allconcerned try to wash their hands of it, invoking hyperlaborspecialization as grounds for exoneration. Such a scenario isinconceivable under the standard model, where authorshipand accountability are isomorphic. But when authorship/ownership of a study is distributed across multiple contrib-utors, many of whom may have zero or weak relation-ships—whether personal or institutional—with their myriadcoworkers (Katz & Martin, 1997), the practical (i.e., en-forceable) allocation of accountability may pose intractableproblems

      orphan papers: where everybody washes hand of poor results by saying it wasn't their specialisation. [[Why is this a problem, actually? The point is that we catch fraudulent or wrong papers, not that we have somebody to blame.

    1. The warning came in the wake of a Justice Department investigation of the role that certain Swiss banks had played in helping United States citizens evade federal taxes.

      I am surprised the New York Times did not mention the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program for Offshore Assets. According to the IRS, "voluntary programs have resulted in more than 45,000 voluntary disclosures from individuals who have paid about $6.5 billion in back taxes, interest and penalties." (See IRS June 6, 2014 Press Release available here

      There is a good chance that some of the tax-payers tax structures analyzed in preparation for this article came into compliance through it. To make matters worse, the NY Times reported on it numerous times since its first incineration in 2009— with the latest Jan. 10 2012 on page B6, available at — which only makes this passing mention of investigations by the Department of the Treasury that much more disappointing.

  11. Dec 2015
  12. May 2015