Been thinking about this thread for days 'cause in papers I do (1) & (2); don't know if I consider tweets the same because it shows likes and not just retweets, but like the thread points out, it's not gonna hurt to cite the secondary source. h/t @generativisthttps://twitter.com/jdmar3/status/976749104549199872 …
-
-
Replying to @story645
Yea, IDK if I agree or disagree
@jdmar3's thread. I just knew it's a real thing that I hadn't thought about it and I should. I think part of why I think it's important is because the biggest offenders are the people with the most visibility, and that's an ecosystem problem.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @generativist @story645
The biggest offenders I see, to a person, are academics with high visibility, and they should well know better.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Yea. Which is bad. Ignoring how academia works, I want my feed sampling a wide variety of experiences from competent and comprehending people. Failure to cite isn't just about credit. It's a social failure in that introductions that could happen don't.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @generativist @story645
YES.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This may be a good RFC-style blog post. Threads don't travel well.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @generativist @story645
Yeah. I mostly use them as writing prompts. Or just as the exhaust pipe for my mind.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I do the latter A LOT. Self-bookmarking for thoughts, too.
-
-
Replying to @generativist @story645
Yes. This also.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.