ASA Connect

In some groups I'm part of, there is a community agreement one makes when signing up that says we won't repost others' words without their explicit permission.  I'm curious; do we have any such agreement?  I haven't found it yet.

I'm not talking of plagiarism in the crudest form, where one person copies another's words and posts them publicly (online or in a journal), for the world to see, under only the new person's name.  I expect most of us would say we shouldn't do that.

I'm thinking of some conversations (e.g., the one on Deming) where there is good material and one might like to post, either internally to one's organization or perhaps somewhere externally, with full attribution, words that clearly make a point they want to repeat.  

For example, Jonathan Siegel wrote in that thread, "Not it only did Walter Shewhart develop the control chart, he did it as a foundational, epistemological inquiry, asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process. A great of what Deming did comes from him."  That's similar to some thoughts I have had from reading Shewhart, but I really like the emphasis in "asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process."

What's our process, if I wanted to use those words, say, on an internal organizational blog?

1. Ask Jonathan by private or public email, and then use them with attribution to him and his organization, modified as he wishes?   It's like the old Well: "Your words are your own."  It's also like academic work: don't use others' IP without permission and attribution.  It gets complex, if I want to use, say, a brief, three-way discussion and thus ask three people if I can use perhaps just a sentence each wrote.
2. Use them, with attribution to him and his organization but without first asking?  That's sort of a "fair use" claim.  It also reflects that everyone is rather busy, and some may have to ask for their organization's official approval to allow it.
3. Use the idea but not the words, and give attribution to the ASA Community.
4. Use the idea but not the words.
5. Don't use them at all, and don't bother asking; we're all too busy to respond to such queries.

Does the answer change if I wanted to use the same words on a publicly-accessible blog?  In a magazine or journal article?

The answers are probably obvious, but different ones of us may have different "obvious" answers.  Would it be of use to be a bit more explicit?  Have we been explicit, and I just have been unable to find the community agreement?

Bill

------------------------------
Bill Harris
Data & Analytics Consultant
Snohomish County PUD
------------------------------

I guess the fact that the ASA Connect Digest email has a "Forward" button attached to each message suggests something about community expectations.

------------------------------
Bill Harris
Data & Analytics Consultant
Snohomish County PUD
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-23-2019 11:08
From: Bill Harris
Subject: Community agreement?

In some groups I'm part of, there is a community agreement one makes when signing up that says we won't repost others' words without their explicit permission.  I'm curious; do we have any such agreement?  I haven't found it yet.

I'm not talking of plagiarism in the crudest form, where one person copies another's words and posts them publicly (online or in a journal), for the world to see, under only the new person's name.  I expect most of us would say we shouldn't do that.

I'm thinking of some conversations (e.g., the one on Deming) where there is good material and one might like to post, either internally to one's organization or perhaps somewhere externally, with full attribution, words that clearly make a point they want to repeat.

For example, Jonathan Siegel wrote in that thread, "Not it only did Walter Shewhart develop the control chart, he did it as a foundational, epistemological inquiry, asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process. A great of what Deming did comes from him."  That's similar to some thoughts I have had from reading Shewhart, but I really like the emphasis in "asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process."

What's our process, if I wanted to use those words, say, on an internal organizational blog?

1. Ask Jonathan by private or public email, and then use them with attribution to him and his organization, modified as he wishes?   It's like the old Well: "Your words are your own."  It's also like academic work: don't use others' IP without permission and attribution.  It gets complex, if I want to use, say, a brief, three-way discussion and thus ask three people if I can use perhaps just a sentence each wrote.
2. Use them, with attribution to him and his organization but without first asking?  That's sort of a "fair use" claim.  It also reflects that everyone is rather busy, and some may have to ask for their organization's official approval to allow it.
3. Use the idea but not the words, and give attribution to the ASA Community.
4. Use the idea but not the words.
5. Don't use them at all, and don't bother asking; we're all too busy to respond to such queries.

Does the answer change if I wanted to use the same words on a publicly-accessible blog?  In a magazine or journal article?

The answers are probably obvious, but different ones of us may have different "obvious" answers.  Would it be of use to be a bit more explicit?  Have we been explicit, and I just have been unable to find the community agreement?

Bill

------------------------------
Bill Harris
Data & Analytics Consultant
Snohomish County PUD
------------------------------

I've had exactly the same questions regarding the ethics, etiquette and established ground rules regarding sharing both inside and outside this community forum.  Indeed I wonder if we might need a moderator to field questions like this and respond in something approaching real time.  Thank you for bringing this up.  Clearly the quality of the threads on offer here begs for clarity on the points you raise.  One I would like to share more broadly with as much attribution as was deemed necessary regards the SCOTUS decision on including a citizenship question in the 2020 census.  The discussions of the Supremes notions of the proper role of science informing the legal system is profound and deserves wide distribution.  How could and should such distribution be done?  I share your concerns about attribution being inadequate, but that's all we've got in this situation.  Clarity about permissions and restrictions on sharing are badly needed.

Tom

Thomas D. Sandry, PhD
Industrial Statistical Consultant, Retired

------------------------------
Thomas Sandry
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-23-2019 11:08
From: Bill Harris
Subject: Community agreement?

In some groups I'm part of, there is a community agreement one makes when signing up that says we won't repost others' words without their explicit permission.  I'm curious; do we have any such agreement?  I haven't found it yet.

I'm not talking of plagiarism in the crudest form, where one person copies another's words and posts them publicly (online or in a journal), for the world to see, under only the new person's name.  I expect most of us would say we shouldn't do that.

I'm thinking of some conversations (e.g., the one on Deming) where there is good material and one might like to post, either internally to one's organization or perhaps somewhere externally, with full attribution, words that clearly make a point they want to repeat.

For example, Jonathan Siegel wrote in that thread, "Not it only did Walter Shewhart develop the control chart, he did it as a foundational, epistemological inquiry, asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process. A great of what Deming did comes from him."  That's similar to some thoughts I have had from reading Shewhart, but I really like the emphasis in "asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process."

What's our process, if I wanted to use those words, say, on an internal organizational blog?

1. Ask Jonathan by private or public email, and then use them with attribution to him and his organization, modified as he wishes?   It's like the old Well: "Your words are your own."  It's also like academic work: don't use others' IP without permission and attribution.  It gets complex, if I want to use, say, a brief, three-way discussion and thus ask three people if I can use perhaps just a sentence each wrote.
2. Use them, with attribution to him and his organization but without first asking?  That's sort of a "fair use" claim.  It also reflects that everyone is rather busy, and some may have to ask for their organization's official approval to allow it.
3. Use the idea but not the words, and give attribution to the ASA Community.
4. Use the idea but not the words.
5. Don't use them at all, and don't bother asking; we're all too busy to respond to such queries.

Does the answer change if I wanted to use the same words on a publicly-accessible blog?  In a magazine or journal article?

The answers are probably obvious, but different ones of us may have different "obvious" answers.  Would it be of use to be a bit more explicit?  Have we been explicit, and I just have been unable to find the community agreement?

Bill

------------------------------
Bill Harris
Data & Analytics Consultant
Snohomish County PUD
------------------------------

Hello, all, 

Though the Code of Conduct doesn't directly address reproducing and attributing ASA Community content, we encourage individuals to reach out to others for permission to reproduce their content before doing so. Members post to discussion groups in the expectation that their posts will reach a certain audience (the members of that particular discussion group) and having that good-faith understanding broken can be distressing and startling and feel like a breach of trust.

(For anyone who has a friends-only Facebook or Twitter account, think of that time a friend decided to take a screencap of one of your private posts and then share that screencap publicly with all of their public followers. Not fun. After having someone breach trust in that way, you likely withdrew from the service or cut off the online relationship with that person. I see this happen frequently online.)

Again, though this isn't a formal requirement, it's good netiquette.

- Lara

------------------------------
Lara Harmon
Marketing and Online Community Coordinator
American Statistical Association
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-23-2019 11:08
From: Bill Harris
Subject: Community agreement?

In some groups I'm part of, there is a community agreement one makes when signing up that says we won't repost others' words without their explicit permission.  I'm curious; do we have any such agreement?  I haven't found it yet.

I'm not talking of plagiarism in the crudest form, where one person copies another's words and posts them publicly (online or in a journal), for the world to see, under only the new person's name.  I expect most of us would say we shouldn't do that.

I'm thinking of some conversations (e.g., the one on Deming) where there is good material and one might like to post, either internally to one's organization or perhaps somewhere externally, with full attribution, words that clearly make a point they want to repeat.

For example, Jonathan Siegel wrote in that thread, "Not it only did Walter Shewhart develop the control chart, he did it as a foundational, epistemological inquiry, asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process. A great of what Deming did comes from him."  That's similar to some thoughts I have had from reading Shewhart, but I really like the emphasis in "asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process."

What's our process, if I wanted to use those words, say, on an internal organizational blog?

1. Ask Jonathan by private or public email, and then use them with attribution to him and his organization, modified as he wishes?   It's like the old Well: "Your words are your own."  It's also like academic work: don't use others' IP without permission and attribution.  It gets complex, if I want to use, say, a brief, three-way discussion and thus ask three people if I can use perhaps just a sentence each wrote.
2. Use them, with attribution to him and his organization but without first asking?  That's sort of a "fair use" claim.  It also reflects that everyone is rather busy, and some may have to ask for their organization's official approval to allow it.
3. Use the idea but not the words, and give attribution to the ASA Community.
4. Use the idea but not the words.
5. Don't use them at all, and don't bother asking; we're all too busy to respond to such queries.

Does the answer change if I wanted to use the same words on a publicly-accessible blog?  In a magazine or journal article?

The answers are probably obvious, but different ones of us may have different "obvious" answers.  Would it be of use to be a bit more explicit?  Have we been explicit, and I just have been unable to find the community agreement?

Bill

------------------------------
Bill Harris
Data & Analytics Consultant
Snohomish County PUD
------------------------------

Lara, thanks.  

When I read the Code, I see "Remember that the ASA Community and other e-mail list participants have the right to reproduce postings to this ASA Group." and "In addition, the posting party grants ASA and users of this list the nonexclusive right and license to display, copy, publish, distribute, transmit, print, and use such information or other material."  Both seem to say to me that one's posting to the list implicitly allows "users of this list" (i.e., anyone who has access) to pretty much do anything we want with the material we read here.  That seems contrary to what you wrote.

While I get the idea you state, I also get that the Code of Conduct may have tried to help us out by eliminating a blast of email permission requests (if someone says something really noteworthy, that person may get a flurry of such emails).  

Here's an idea: what if you added to the Code of Conduct an implicit assumption that all postings fall under a Creative Commons BY license (4.0 or later)?  That sounds like what the code says, except that it makes attribution a clear requirement.  It might be simpler just to add an attribution requirement to the code.

------------------------------
Bill Harris
Data & Analytics Consultant
Snohomish County PUD
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-24-2019 11:03
From: Lara Harmon
Subject: Community agreement?

Hello, all,

Though the Code of Conduct doesn't directly address reproducing and attributing ASA Community content, we encourage individuals to reach out to others for permission to reproduce their content before doing so. Members post to discussion groups in the expectation that their posts will reach a certain audience (the members of that particular discussion group) and having that good-faith understanding broken can be distressing and startling and feel like a breach of trust.

(For anyone who has a friends-only Facebook or Twitter account, think of that time a friend decided to take a screencap of one of your private posts and then share that screencap publicly with all of their public followers. Not fun. After having someone breach trust in that way, you likely withdrew from the service or cut off the online relationship with that person. I see this happen frequently online.)

Again, though this isn't a formal requirement, it's good netiquette.

- Lara

------------------------------
Lara Harmon
Marketing and Online Community Coordinator
American Statistical Association

Original Message:
Sent: 07-23-2019 11:08
From: Bill Harris
Subject: Community agreement?

In some groups I'm part of, there is a community agreement one makes when signing up that says we won't repost others' words without their explicit permission.  I'm curious; do we have any such agreement?  I haven't found it yet.

I'm not talking of plagiarism in the crudest form, where one person copies another's words and posts them publicly (online or in a journal), for the world to see, under only the new person's name.  I expect most of us would say we shouldn't do that.

I'm thinking of some conversations (e.g., the one on Deming) where there is good material and one might like to post, either internally to one's organization or perhaps somewhere externally, with full attribution, words that clearly make a point they want to repeat.

For example, Jonathan Siegel wrote in that thread, "Not it only did Walter Shewhart develop the control chart, he did it as a foundational, epistemological inquiry, asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process. A great of what Deming did comes from him."  That's similar to some thoughts I have had from reading Shewhart, but I really like the emphasis in "asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process."

What's our process, if I wanted to use those words, say, on an internal organizational blog?

1. Ask Jonathan by private or public email, and then use them with attribution to him and his organization, modified as he wishes?   It's like the old Well: "Your words are your own."  It's also like academic work: don't use others' IP without permission and attribution.  It gets complex, if I want to use, say, a brief, three-way discussion and thus ask three people if I can use perhaps just a sentence each wrote.
2. Use them, with attribution to him and his organization but without first asking?  That's sort of a "fair use" claim.  It also reflects that everyone is rather busy, and some may have to ask for their organization's official approval to allow it.
3. Use the idea but not the words, and give attribution to the ASA Community.
4. Use the idea but not the words.
5. Don't use them at all, and don't bother asking; we're all too busy to respond to such queries.

Does the answer change if I wanted to use the same words on a publicly-accessible blog?  In a magazine or journal article?

The answers are probably obvious, but different ones of us may have different "obvious" answers.  Would it be of use to be a bit more explicit?  Have we been explicit, and I just have been unable to find the community agreement?

Bill

------------------------------
Bill Harris
Data & Analytics Consultant
Snohomish County PUD
------------------------------

UPDATE: I have discovered that one can edit previously posted messages and have edited my original one on Dr. Deming, so it would be OK to publish it. 

Jonathan

Appreciate this.

I would in principal be fine with the post being shared.

Unfortunately it was accidentally posted a bit prematurely and contains typos. While I decided not to bother the moderators by trying to rescind and resend, I think anything shared outside should look more presentable. I will attempt to provide a more presentable version by tonight. 

I think a lesson for me for the future is to acknowledge and accept that there seems to be a positive correlation between the interest of the underlying thoughts and the amount of proofreading the first draft needs when I try to write them out. In the future it might be best for me to prepare posts for this forum outside and then cut and paste when ready, to reduce problems.

------------------------------
Jonathan Siegel
Deputy Director Clinical Statistics
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-23-2019 11:08
From: Bill Harris
Subject: Community agreement?

In some groups I'm part of, there is a community agreement one makes when signing up that says we won't repost others' words without their explicit permission.  I'm curious; do we have any such agreement?  I haven't found it yet.

I'm not talking of plagiarism in the crudest form, where one person copies another's words and posts them publicly (online or in a journal), for the world to see, under only the new person's name.  I expect most of us would say we shouldn't do that.

I'm thinking of some conversations (e.g., the one on Deming) where there is good material and one might like to post, either internally to one's organization or perhaps somewhere externally, with full attribution, words that clearly make a point they want to repeat.

For example, Jonathan Siegel wrote in that thread, "Not it only did Walter Shewhart develop the control chart, he did it as a foundational, epistemological inquiry, asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process. A great of what Deming did comes from him."  That's similar to some thoughts I have had from reading Shewhart, but I really like the emphasis in "asking under what conditions can we ensure that statistical inference approximately holds, and then asking how we can create those conditions, if we can, when we are starting with a situation where it doesn't but have the ability to intervene in a process."

What's our process, if I wanted to use those words, say, on an internal organizational blog?

1. Ask Jonathan by private or public email, and then use them with attribution to him and his organization, modified as he wishes?   It's like the old Well: "Your words are your own."  It's also like academic work: don't use others' IP without permission and attribution.  It gets complex, if I want to use, say, a brief, three-way discussion and thus ask three people if I can use perhaps just a sentence each wrote.
2. Use them, with attribution to him and his organization but without first asking?  That's sort of a "fair use" claim.  It also reflects that everyone is rather busy, and some may have to ask for their organization's official approval to allow it.
3. Use the idea but not the words, and give attribution to the ASA Community.
4. Use the idea but not the words.
5. Don't use them at all, and don't bother asking; we're all too busy to respond to such queries.

Does the answer change if I wanted to use the same words on a publicly-accessible blog?  In a magazine or journal article?

The answers are probably obvious, but different ones of us may have different "obvious" answers.  Would it be of use to be a bit more explicit?  Have we been explicit, and I just have been unable to find the community agreement?

Bill

------------------------------
Bill Harris
Data & Analytics Consultant
Snohomish County PUD
------------------------------