On 30 March 2015 at 16:00, Brian J Mingus <brian.mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
I propose we run a study. We will survey random
editors and ask them if
they realize that there is a chance they are leaking enough information for
their identity to be revealed. *Even if they are logged in.*
What exactly do you hope to learn?
Regarding comparisons - institutions have structure,
and if there is a
structure mapping, then it's a matter of fact. A given mapping will have
strengths and weaknesses. You may prefer one mapping to another. If you
have reasons for preferring one mapping (other than that it offends you),
I'm all ears. But be aware: simply changing the vocabulary that you use to
describe the space doesn't mean that two different descriptions of
institutions aren't in fact describing a construct that is more similar
than different, or that is similar in important ways.
This is all to say, there are often reasons that institutions like the NSA
and WMF are structured the way they are. Given the investment in the topic,
it's probably worth exploring how the institutional structures emerged. But
given the investment, confirmation bias may prevail in this case: even if
there are important similarities, nobody wants to look like a hypocrite.
What does this have to do with anything?
--
geni