Of all the qualified epidemiology reviewers in the world, 80% of reviewers being on twitter with mean 42,000 followers is enriched for twitter celebrities. Sorry to break that to you
-
-
Replying to @VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom
Lol, leaving aside the absurdity of using the mean value, as we've already discussed most of those followers were probably gained for doing things precisely like this. You even agreed!
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 Retweeted Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷
median is 10000 Your comparison is not righthttps://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1369159357749862400?s=20 …
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 added,
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom
And how many of those "possible" reviewers regularly agree to do public fact-checks? Is it plausible that doing public fact-checks during COVID-19 is a great way to get followers quickly?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Then let's consider further - of they are intentionally selecting celebrities, why is the mean so much higher than the median? Take away 2-3 of their really high follower accounts and suddenly it's mostly just boring academics
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
And then let's go back and take another look at some of the accounts. Several of them were ONLY CREATED in 2020 by professors with relevant subject matter expertise. Is it a reasonable claim to say that they are "twitter celebrities"?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Now let's think about a counterfactual. The people most likely to agree to participate in a public fact-check of their peers work are also the most likely to be active on social media during the pandemic, and may have gained followers for precisely this reason Plausible?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
No. This fact checking is purportedly important, so if you ask random university faculty, many will likely agree. The pool of qualified reviewers is massive 10k +; I see no reason to think that folks active on twitter will preferentially agree to review/so much they dominate
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 Retweeted Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷
as I say, circleshttps://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1369161597600423937?s=20 …
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 added,
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷Verified account @VPrasadMDMPHReplying to @GidMK @CT_BergstromYou are going in circles there are 2 claims 1. Among all possible qualified reviewers, these folks are disproportionately popular on twitter (true) 2. That is convenient, b/c you know how they will vote https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1369141032152014848?s=20 …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You answer me a few questions: How does one decide which articles to review? How does one pick reviewers? How does one handle dispute? What is the appeal process?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't really care about the rest of the article tbh, Facebook is unfair about 99% of their content rules because all they care about is profit - you can argue about that until the universe ends and it still won't change. I'm merely pointing out an error of fact
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.