Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
Equally important are standards (wrong term really) for dataset descriptions so they can be shared in HUMAN readable/comprehensible ways. This is often the bigger problem, resulting in publishing and sharing efforts that don't really work. On Sep 4, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Kerry Raymond wrote: Hmm, a meta data standard. there must be a few dozen on the shelf to pick from ... I recall writing a few myself once :-) Sent from my iPad On 4 Sep 2014, at 9:53 am, Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com wrote: What I think we really need is better standardisation of description of datasets, so that they can shared in machine-readable ways. Then we can have as many different groups working with different sets of datasets as we like and still search, find and publish globally. cheers stuart On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org wrote: I don't think there's cause for you to be concerned, Stu. FWIW, we've talked to Tim since launch, and after we expressed our concerns he assured us that the model of DERP is still just facilitating connections in a non-exclusive way, rather than playing a role as a reviewing body or a data broker of any kind. There were other reasons we decided to be a little more cautious about committing to this kind of initiative. As Toby Negrin pointed out recently: There is one major difference between the companies involved in DERP and ourselves -- they all use data collected from their users to make money and we explicitly do not. This is frankly a point of pride for many members of the foundation and certainly the community. More pragmatically, the last week of organizing for the DERP launch just happened too fast for us (and happened during Wikimania, to boot!). Those of us in research-y roles hadn't had a chance to discuss all the evolving details as a team, and on the eve of the launch we didn't all feel we had a 100% clear idea of what commitments we would be making by joining. But we're still on the DERP mailing list, and (if the review gods are merciful) we plan to co-organize a CSCW workshop with Tim Hwang and Max Goodman at CSCW 2015. We like DERP! Don't stop DERPing! - Jonathan On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:31 PM, R.Stuart Geiger sgei...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, thanks for all the info. I'm a DERP fellow, which means I was planning on participating in this as a researcher (I'm doing some work on reddit, too) as well as serving as an advisory board. I apparently haven't been involved in the same threads/calls with the DERP organizers that Aaron, Jonathan, and Dario have been on, and I'm kind of shocked at what I'm hearing. I completely believe you guys, it just runs so opposite to what I've been told that I'm dreading the e-mail I think I'm going to have to write to the DERP folks. This is the first time I've heard anything about DERP being much more than an informal communication broker between organizations and academic researchers. DERP was pitched to me as a big signaling mechanism to researchers, platforms, and the public that there are spaces outside of Facebook and Twitter to do research. Wikimedia obviously doesn't need DERP as much as some of the smaller platforms do, but I thought it would be great for Wikimedia's presence (yes, the logo) to be there, standing in solidarity with the lesser-researched platforms. As it was explained to me, all that was supposed to be involved in a platform joining DERP is 1) a public declaration that they are open to receiving requests from researchers via DERP and 2) a commitment to review and respond to proposals that were e-mailed from researchers to DERP. In one of the fellows calls, I actually think someone asked whether DERP would be like an Institutional Review Board that would independently approve/reject studies, and we all thought that it would be better for these to be done on a case-by-case basis between the researcher and the platform(s). Early on, I actually suggested adding some language about ethics. I suggested that as we started these projects, it would be great to develop an ongoing, informal set of best practices for doing computational social science in an academic/industry partnership -- particularly in the wake of the Facebook emotion contagion study. Something like a series of blog posts about the various ethical issues we encountered in the course of doing this kind of research across a bunch of different platforms, and ways that they were resolved. Perhaps that might synthesize into a mini workshop culminating in a whitepaper, but it wouldn't ever be binding. As I was told about it, DERP's direct role ends once the researcher has made successful contact with the platform, aside from very high-level community organizing things like discussions about best practices. Same thing with data standards -- it is a fool's errand to mandate those, but I was told that DERP might one
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:29 PM, Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org wrote: There were other reasons we decided to be a little more cautious about committing to this kind of initiative. As Toby Negrin pointed out recently: There is one major difference between the companies involved in DERP and ourselves -- they all use data collected from their users to make money and we explicitly do not. This is frankly a point of pride for many members of the foundation and certainly the community. Wikimedia is a nonprofit, but that doesn't mean it can't bring in money based on data collected from its users. I think we all know that this is exactly what it does. As a non-profit WMF is just prevented from making a profit, right? More pragmatically, the last week of organizing for the DERP launch just happened too fast for us (and happened during Wikimania, to boot!). Those of us in research-y roles hadn't had a chance to discuss all the evolving details as a team, and on the eve of the launch we didn't all feel we had a 100% clear idea of what commitments we would be making by joining. Ok, this is much more plausible. I'm new to the idea of DERP, but based on what Stuart just wrote it does sound like a useful effort to be a part of. But we're still on the DERP mailing list, and (if the review gods are merciful) we plan to co-organize a CSCW workshop with Tim Hwang and Max Goodman at CSCW 2015. Do you know how to get on the DERP mailing list? //Ed___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
Do you know how to get on the DERP mailing list? It looks like inquire@derp.institute is the right place to ask. On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote: On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:29 PM, Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org wrote: There were other reasons we decided to be a little more cautious about committing to this kind of initiative. As Toby Negrin pointed out recently: There is one major difference between the companies involved in DERP and ourselves -- they all use data collected from their users to make money and we explicitly do not. This is frankly a point of pride for many members of the foundation and certainly the community. Wikimedia is a nonprofit, but that doesn't mean it can't bring in money based on data collected from its users. I think we all know that this is exactly what it does. As a non-profit WMF is just prevented from making a profit, right? More pragmatically, the last week of organizing for the DERP launch just happened too fast for us (and happened during Wikimania, to boot!). Those of us in research-y roles hadn't had a chance to discuss all the evolving details as a team, and on the eve of the launch we didn't all feel we had a 100% clear idea of what commitments we would be making by joining. Ok, this is much more plausible. I'm new to the idea of DERP, but based on what Stuart just wrote it does sound like a useful effort to be a part of. But we're still on the DERP mailing list, and (if the review gods are merciful) we plan to co-organize a CSCW workshop with Tim Hwang and Max Goodman at CSCW 2015. Do you know how to get on the DERP mailing list? //Ed ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
On Sep 4, 2014, at 11:20 AM, aaron shaw aarons...@northwestern.edu wrote: Sorry Ed, I don't think we all know that. In fact, I'm unaware of any way in which Wikimedia makes money based on data collected from its users. To my knowledge, the Foundation is supported almost entirely through private donations[1]. Ok, try this on for size: An edit to a Wikipedia article is data collected from its users. WMF receives millions of dollars of donations a year because of this data, and its accessibility. //Ed___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
Uhm. If you don't think there's any distinction in nature or terminology between 'The contents of a form field intentionally filled out and submitted by a user' andevery other kind of data, there's a disconnect here somewhere. On Thursday, 4 September 2014, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote: On Sep 4, 2014, at 11:20 AM, aaron shaw aarons...@northwestern.edu javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','aarons...@northwestern.edu'); wrote: Sorry Ed, I don't think we all know that. In fact, I'm unaware of any way in which Wikimedia makes money based on data collected from its users. To my knowledge, the Foundation is supported almost entirely through private donations[1]. Ok, try this on for size: An edit to a Wikipedia article is data collected from its users. WMF receives millions of dollars of donations a year because of this data, and its accessibility. //Ed -- Sent from a portable device of Lovecraftian complexity. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote: On Sep 4, 2014, at 11:20 AM, aaron shaw aarons...@northwestern.edu wrote: Sorry Ed, I don't think we all know that. In fact, I'm unaware of any way in which Wikimedia makes money based on data collected from its users. To my knowledge, the Foundation is supported almost entirely through private donations[1]. Ok, try this on for size: An edit to a Wikipedia article is data collected from its users. WMF receives millions of dollars of donations a year because of this data, and its accessibility. //Ed So, the more common descriptor for that is content generated by users since data collected from users usually refers to data *about the user. *Just one more example of how a non-standard use of language can cause confusion. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
On Sep 4, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: e more common descriptor for that is content generated by users since data collected from users usually refers to data about the user. Just one more example of how a non-standard use of language can cause confusion. It’s a pretty blurry line that separates the two, since the content we generate is pretty good at describing us. But I see your point that Wikimedia Foundation does not generate revenue from mining its user contributed data and selling it for purposes, other than making the worlds best, free encyclopedia (for which it will happily accept donations). //Ed___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
Also some coverage here in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/09/science-web On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Has this been considered? It seems to apply to us in many ways. http://news.yahoo.com/course-reddit-imgur-named-research-institute-derp-142950548.html ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Brian C. Keegan, Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Lazer Lab College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University Fellow, Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, Harvard University Affiliate, Berkman Center for Internet Society, Harvard Law School b.kee...@neu.edu www.brianckeegan.com M: 617.803.6971 O: 617.373.7200 Skype: bckeegan ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
I would point out the difference between (concept) conflation vs (technological) convergence. To my knowledge, the meta data, i.e. the possible data about its user-readers and user-contributors are sometimes gathered systematically for user experience (UX) and interface testing, data analytics and research (both in-house and external). Most of the time such metadata could be framed as behavioral, or be aggregated as social groups. So the questions come back to us, the subscribers of Research into Wikimedia content and communities. Have we generated some type of *revenue from mining its user contributed data*? I would thus suggest using the term meta-data to describe any user data/patterns that can be mined from the basic edit data points. It is better not to conflate the two because the latter one has clearer social contract (submit this and you agree these). The two may be converging because of the technological tools we may have as researchers, or the next Talk page system, or the some metric systems to measure content and/or users. Such converging only demonstrates the increasing complexity of the data eco-system but does not grant us the leisure of conceptual conflation. What does the action of hitting the edit/submit button entail for data governance? Some how I still think a distinction does exist between the edit data and the other contextual data (time stamps, ids, etc.) and derived meta data. 2014-09-04 23:07 GMT+02:00 Brian Keegan b.kee...@neu.edu: Also some coverage here in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/09/science-web On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Has this been considered? It seems to apply to us in many ways. http://news.yahoo.com/course-reddit-imgur-named-research-institute-derp-142950548.html ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Brian C. Keegan, Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Lazer Lab College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University Fellow, Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, Harvard University Affiliate, Berkman Center for Internet Society, Harvard Law School b.kee...@neu.edu www.brianckeegan.com M: 617.803.6971 O: 617.373.7200 Skype: bckeegan ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
Indeed. Jonathan, Dario and I have been in contact with Tim Hwang and the other DERP organizers for months. We're a big fan of the project and we're on the DERP mailing list. Regretfully, there was some confusion around the time that DERP was going to go live that required us to back out (e.g. use of the WMF logo needed to be authorized). On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Has this been considered? It seems to apply to us in many ways. http://news.yahoo.com/course-reddit-imgur-named-research-institute-derp-142950548.html ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
So does that mean that it's on the agenda for whichever group approves use of the WMF logo? On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfa...@wikimedia.org wrote: Indeed. Jonathan, Dario and I have been in contact with Tim Hwang and the other DERP organizers for months. We're a big fan of the project and we're on the DERP mailing list. Regretfully, there was some confusion around the time that DERP was going to go live that required us to back out (e.g. use of the WMF logo needed to be authorized). On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Has this been considered? It seems to apply to us in many ways. http://news.yahoo.com/course-reddit-imgur-named-research-institute-derp-142950548.html ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
On Sep 3, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfa...@wikimedia.org wrote: Indeed. Jonathan, Dario and I have been in contact with Tim Hwang and the other DERP organizers for months. We're a big fan of the project and we're on the DERP mailing list. Regretfully, there was some confusion around the time that DERP was going to go live that required us to back out (e.g. use of the WMF logo needed to be authorized). Is the DERP mailing list public yet? //Ed ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
When I started working with DERP, it was just a mailing list. When DERP became something bigger (press release with logos == the WMF Comm Team's concerns), it needed wider consultation within the WMF. For better or worse, it does not seem like that is a priority right now. For all intents and purposes, we have our own DERP right here. We have a public mailing list. We support volunteer external researchers access to data (and we're actively working to make that easier[1]). We hold regular outreach events (like the Research Hackathon @ Wikimania). We're also organizing outreach events with other open ecosystem online communities. For example, we have CSCW'15 workshop proposal submitted, and assuming it is accepted, we'll have participants from Imgur, Reddit and Zooniverse. 1. quarry.wmflabs.org -Aaron On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote: On Sep 3, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfa...@wikimedia.org wrote: Indeed. Jonathan, Dario and I have been in contact with Tim Hwang and the other DERP organizers for months. We're a big fan of the project and we're on the DERP mailing list. Regretfully, there was some confusion around the time that DERP was going to go live that required us to back out (e.g. use of the WMF logo needed to be authorized). Is the DERP mailing list public yet? //Ed ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
What I think we really need is better standardisation of description of datasets, so that they can shared in machine-readable ways. Then we can have as many different groups working with different sets of datasets as we like and still search, find and publish globally. cheers stuart On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org wrote: I don't think there's cause for you to be concerned, Stu. FWIW, we've talked to Tim since launch, and after we expressed our concerns he assured us that the model of DERP is still just facilitating connections in a non-exclusive way, rather than playing a role as a reviewing body or a data broker of any kind. There were other reasons we decided to be a little more cautious about committing to this kind of initiative. As Toby Negrin pointed out recently: There is one major difference between the companies involved in DERP and ourselves -- they all use data collected from their users to make money and we explicitly do not. This is frankly a point of pride for many members of the foundation and certainly the community. More pragmatically, the last week of organizing for the DERP launch just happened too fast for us (and happened during Wikimania, to boot!). Those of us in research-y roles hadn't had a chance to discuss all the evolving details as a team, and on the eve of the launch we didn't all feel we had a 100% clear idea of what commitments we would be making by joining. But we're still on the DERP mailing list, and (if the review gods are merciful) we plan to co-organize a CSCW workshop with Tim Hwang and Max Goodman at CSCW 2015. We like DERP! Don't stop DERPing! - Jonathan On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:31 PM, R.Stuart Geiger sgei...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, thanks for all the info. I'm a DERP fellow, which means I was planning on participating in this as a researcher (I'm doing some work on reddit, too) as well as serving as an advisory board. I apparently haven't been involved in the same threads/calls with the DERP organizers that Aaron, Jonathan, and Dario have been on, and I'm kind of shocked at what I'm hearing. I completely believe you guys, it just runs so opposite to what I've been told that I'm dreading the e-mail I think I'm going to have to write to the DERP folks. This is the first time I've heard anything about DERP being much more than an informal communication broker between organizations and academic researchers. DERP was pitched to me as a big signaling mechanism to researchers, platforms, and the public that there are spaces outside of Facebook and Twitter to do research. Wikimedia obviously doesn't need DERP as much as some of the smaller platforms do, but I thought it would be great for Wikimedia's presence (yes, the logo) to be there, standing in solidarity with the lesser-researched platforms. As it was explained to me, all that was supposed to be involved in a platform joining DERP is 1) a public declaration that they are open to receiving requests from researchers via DERP and 2) a commitment to review and respond to proposals that were e-mailed from researchers to DERP. In one of the fellows calls, I actually think someone asked whether DERP would be like an Institutional Review Board that would independently approve/reject studies, and we all thought that it would be better for these to be done on a case-by-case basis between the researcher and the platform(s). Early on, I actually suggested adding some language about ethics. I suggested that as we started these projects, it would be great to develop an ongoing, informal set of best practices for doing computational social science in an academic/industry partnership -- particularly in the wake of the Facebook emotion contagion study. Something like a series of blog posts about the various ethical issues we encountered in the course of doing this kind of research across a bunch of different platforms, and ways that they were resolved. Perhaps that might synthesize into a mini workshop culminating in a whitepaper, but it wouldn't ever be binding. As I was told about it, DERP's direct role ends once the researcher has made successful contact with the platform, aside from very high-level community organizing things like discussions about best practices. Same thing with data standards -- it is a fool's errand to mandate those, but I was told that DERP might one day be a hub where people could talk about how to integrate data from different platforms. I did see the language that All research supported by DERP will be released openly and made publicly available, but I interpreted this as something even weaker than Green OA -- that even if you publish in a closed access journal, you have to write something up about the research. Kind of like what Aaron did with our ABS paper. [1] The idea was that you should't be able to do studies in the dark without anybody ever knowing about them. The fellows were
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Joining derp?
Hmm, a meta data standard. there must be a few dozen on the shelf to pick from ... I recall writing a few myself once :-) Sent from my iPad On 4 Sep 2014, at 9:53 am, Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com wrote: What I think we really need is better standardisation of description of datasets, so that they can shared in machine-readable ways. Then we can have as many different groups working with different sets of datasets as we like and still search, find and publish globally. cheers stuart On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org wrote: I don't think there's cause for you to be concerned, Stu. FWIW, we've talked to Tim since launch, and after we expressed our concerns he assured us that the model of DERP is still just facilitating connections in a non-exclusive way, rather than playing a role as a reviewing body or a data broker of any kind. There were other reasons we decided to be a little more cautious about committing to this kind of initiative. As Toby Negrin pointed out recently: There is one major difference between the companies involved in DERP and ourselves -- they all use data collected from their users to make money and we explicitly do not. This is frankly a point of pride for many members of the foundation and certainly the community. More pragmatically, the last week of organizing for the DERP launch just happened too fast for us (and happened during Wikimania, to boot!). Those of us in research-y roles hadn't had a chance to discuss all the evolving details as a team, and on the eve of the launch we didn't all feel we had a 100% clear idea of what commitments we would be making by joining. But we're still on the DERP mailing list, and (if the review gods are merciful) we plan to co-organize a CSCW workshop with Tim Hwang and Max Goodman at CSCW 2015. We like DERP! Don't stop DERPing! - Jonathan On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:31 PM, R.Stuart Geiger sgei...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, thanks for all the info. I'm a DERP fellow, which means I was planning on participating in this as a researcher (I'm doing some work on reddit, too) as well as serving as an advisory board. I apparently haven't been involved in the same threads/calls with the DERP organizers that Aaron, Jonathan, and Dario have been on, and I'm kind of shocked at what I'm hearing. I completely believe you guys, it just runs so opposite to what I've been told that I'm dreading the e-mail I think I'm going to have to write to the DERP folks. This is the first time I've heard anything about DERP being much more than an informal communication broker between organizations and academic researchers. DERP was pitched to me as a big signaling mechanism to researchers, platforms, and the public that there are spaces outside of Facebook and Twitter to do research. Wikimedia obviously doesn't need DERP as much as some of the smaller platforms do, but I thought it would be great for Wikimedia's presence (yes, the logo) to be there, standing in solidarity with the lesser-researched platforms. As it was explained to me, all that was supposed to be involved in a platform joining DERP is 1) a public declaration that they are open to receiving requests from researchers via DERP and 2) a commitment to review and respond to proposals that were e-mailed from researchers to DERP. In one of the fellows calls, I actually think someone asked whether DERP would be like an Institutional Review Board that would independently approve/reject studies, and we all thought that it would be better for these to be done on a case-by-case basis between the researcher and the platform(s). Early on, I actually suggested adding some language about ethics. I suggested that as we started these projects, it would be great to develop an ongoing, informal set of best practices for doing computational social science in an academic/industry partnership -- particularly in the wake of the Facebook emotion contagion study. Something like a series of blog posts about the various ethical issues we encountered in the course of doing this kind of research across a bunch of different platforms, and ways that they were resolved. Perhaps that might synthesize into a mini workshop culminating in a whitepaper, but it wouldn't ever be binding. As I was told about it, DERP's direct role ends once the researcher has made successful contact with the platform, aside from very high-level community organizing things like discussions about best practices. Same thing with data standards -- it is a fool's errand to mandate those, but I was told that DERP might one day be a hub where people could talk about how to integrate data from different platforms. I did see the language that All research supported by DERP will be released openly and made publicly available, but I interpreted this as something even weaker than Green OA -- that even if you publish in a closed
