Honest question: If you advocate open science, but do not care about putting in the work to do open science in a way that helps and not harms people, what are you advocating open science for? (disclaimer: if you read this and think it is addressed to you, it probably isn't)
-
-
The problem we have to deal with is how these people are not discussed as much within the areas of open science we inhabit... and that's a genuinely valuable question.
-
I think the reasons are really complex and they do boils down to people not thinking deeply about what open even means. A very sad truth.
-
+100 on the point that different areas of Open* define it very differently. There's one person who said a few months ago "If you want to include diversity you have to call it something else, Open Science works just fine as it is" and it bothers me every day.
-
Actually, the awareness of the importance of inclusion in different areas of Open Source, Open Science, Open Research, Open Access etc etc is really variable across communities. Some of the oldest are the ones that care the most. They're what give me hope that times will change.pic.twitter.com/dGzLjLQIMK
-
I think it's tricky to claim the older ones are better when it's the case that one of the oldest is pretty bad... BUT yes, a really good indicator of if an open movement will be open is to see who it is open to? Otherwise how will it survive as "open"?https://www.wired.com/2017/06/diversity-open-source-even-worse-tech-overall/ …
End of conversation
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.