Since I can't be at CHI to talk to anyone in person, I wrote up a response to the FCA proposal on reporting negative impacts in papers:https://medium.com/@eytanadar/negative-potential-in-cs-b26964b4f502 …
-
I'm ok with removing design implications... :) I think it's necessary to motivate a problem (in most CS work), but that can be done independently of crazy speculation. But like I said, it's rare that people gatekeep on the *content* of design implication sections.
Or... *if* you include positive design implications, *then* you have to include negative ones, too. But more generally, I can't help but feel that arguments like Eytan's will be read as letting researchers off the hook.
-
-
I guess this is the part I don't get. So authors only *maybe* get the positive/negatives of their work? And we need to check? If this is true, why should we trust them when they take their author hat off and put on the reviewer hat? 1/2
-
Or they do have a grasp of the issues, but they need to provide a pro forma discussion/disclaimer? If so, why? 2/2
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.