Another question is whether we should worry about it. I suspect the in-group aspect has marginal effects compared to changing incentives.
-
-
Well, insisting we're not a movement = rhetorical play that has been used in and by other groups to sidestep criticism. I've seen it before.
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @BrentWRoberts and
Does the movement refer mainly to those influencing others to do open science? Or also include anybody who just does open science themselves
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @CookieSci @o_guest and
Given the how sensitive those opposed to changing are, I suspect it includes anyone who does open science.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @o_guest @BrentWRoberts and
Just to be clear, it's the latter then? In your understanding/opinion I mean. (Just want to understand what the debate is even about)
7 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @CookieSci @o_guest and
IMHO, the in-group aspect is fluid and depends on which side of the semi-permeable barrier you sit >
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BrentWRoberts @CookieSci and
Is there a group of people advocating it? Yes & you could call that a movement. But you don't join any "movement" by using open practices.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sampendu @BrentWRoberts and
So you don't join feminism if you believe sexism exists? I think you do, but it is complex. Some people say "I'm not a feminist but".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @BrentWRoberts and
No I don't think you join feminism. You are either a feminist or you aren't. I believe it is a right cause regardless of who agrees with me.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It's undoubtedly a movement, was my point.
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.