Well. You can also criticize the analysis. Where is it flawed? Where did it go wrong. If the data is open this should be easier.
-
-
Exactly - the data in this case is deliberately skewed, and the plot by K is an exceptionally racist interpretation of the data.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @blahah404 @botminds and
If all we do is add more data, we're never challenging the problem of people (a) abusing data to promote racism and (b) making OA look bad
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @blahah404 @botminds and
I didn't say "add more data". I said challenge them with open data (ideally the same data they use). That's the whole point of open science.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sampendu @blahah404 and
The data is often unethically sourced.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @blahah404 and
Doesn't this invalidate the notion that he is using open science in the first place?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sampendu @blahah404 and
Absolutely not. He is using it explicitly as a shield. Check out his work.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
he isn't using open science, but runs two bullshit journals called Open[something] and justifies his work using the open science label
3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @blahah404 @o_guest and
Sounds like something that should be called out. As I said, it's important to fight the impression that this is what open science is.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
I think this is what Olivia has been saying all along
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
It's been exhausting with like 10 different threads all started based on little understanding of my words and K's vileness.
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.