@aurabogado @kukkurovaca What I meant is that what people consider to be reasonable is subject to change and not a clear binary.
-
-
Replying to @vossbrink
@vossbrink@kukkurovaca I disagree. The focus here should be IRB, which always stipulates people have a choice to participate in a study.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aurabogado
@aurabogado@vossbrink That make sense. But OOC would the same apply to a study of, say, personals ads in newspapers?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kukkurovaca
@kukkurovaca@vossbrink Under IRB? Why wouldn't it? The researcher should make the effort to identify the subject and give them a choice.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @aurabogado
@aurabogado@vossbrink Or the inclusion of sources in corpus linguistics? Or is there no threshold of something being too published?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kukkurovaca
@kukkurovaca@vossbrink Not sure I understand the question. Can you give me an example for a corpus linguistics sourse?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aurabogado
@aurabogado@vossbrink Examples suggested by@earthtopus were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Corpus …, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Corpus ….1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kukkurovaca
@aurabogado@vossbrink@earthtopus Or Google Ngrams leaps to mind. The only issue considered in these contexts seems to by copyright.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kukkurovaca
@aurabogado@vossbrink@earthtopus Er, "be copyright."1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kukkurovaca
@aurabogado@vossbrink@earthtopus I don't mean to suggest twitter should be treated the same way, just curious re: where the lines are.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@kukkurovaca @vossbrink @earthtopus The lines are where the IRB says there should be informed consent.
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.