Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration agency AI Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression archer Archive Archiving artificial intelligence automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Communicative Escalation and Cultural Abundance: How Do We Cope? Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings craft creativity critical realism data science Defensive Elites Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital Inequalities Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities elites Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI higher education Interested labour Lacan Listening LLMs margaret archer Organising personal morphogenesis Philosophy of Technology platform capitalism platforms Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy post-truth psychoanalysis public engagement public sociology publishing Reading realism reflexivity scholarship sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics social ontology social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work theory The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized work writing zizek

attribution in live tweeting

I’m in the process of taking a carving knife to Social Media for Academics so expect more snippets to follow: 

As Deborah Lupton has observed in her Digital Sociology, “Some academics are concerned that if their conference papers are live-tweeted at conferences, audio- or videotaped, blogged abut, or otherwise shared on social media by others their new and original ideas may be misrepresented or stolen before they have a change to fully develop them”. Even this assumes that the reporting is accurate. It can be extremely difficult to summarise complex ideas in 140 characters or less, even if you’ve understood the speaker perfectly. Attribution in live tweeting can be a difficult issue. To what extent can established norms about citation be respected in 140 characters or less? It could be argued that for sustained commentary this might be less of an issue, if it is a continual stream then as long as the start and end of talks is marked (such as “The next speaker is @person1 talking about live tweeting” and “That was a great talk by @person1. Next we have @person2”) ambiguity about the source of the content being summarised is minimised, if not eliminated entirely. The presence of the hashtag can help in this respect, though as discussed below it should be chosen carefully, insofar as it helps signpost the fact that a given tweet is related to a particular event. However this is far from conclusive in addressing the problem and the risk remains that a casual reader, something which it might be safest to assume most users of Twitter are at least most of the time, might assume that a tweet by a live tweeter summarising a talk is in fact the work of the live tweeter themselves.

, ,