That this was published without serious qualification says bad things about data journalism's promise to be different.
-
-
Replying to @bshor @ScottClif
normally might agree. but, a) this is NOT not published (clearly labelled as working paper and does include quals) and
@psforscher has 1/31 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @dan_a_chapman @bshor and
been welcome to critique. Further,
@B_resnick coverage in the article clearly marks caveats/caution. Yes, data journalism can be bad 2/31 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @dan_a_chapman @bshor and
but in my exp this has been better than many, even if I might not agree with everything in the analysis. why not suggest mods for ppr? 3/3
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @dan_a_chapman @bshor and
hey! so the authors do note that the mturk sample is a limitation. (And they seem completely open to feedback. hence preprint). They did ...
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @B_resnick @dan_a_chapman and
... do a few checks. Like asking after the survey was done, and the participants had been paid, if they answered alt right just to get $...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @B_resnick @dan_a_chapman and
...they got paid already, so I'm told there's little incentive to lie. They also had participants free respond to "describe the movement"
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @B_resnick @dan_a_chapman and
... and looked for people just copy-pasting from wikipedia ... It's not perfect. And I tried to be careful writing this all up.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @B_resnick @bshor and
I think you did an excellent job of writing this up. Thank you for your additional input and clarification!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.