<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: How should we deal with your data?</title> <atom:link href="http://www.copress.org/2008/09/23/how-should-we-deal-with-your-data/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.copress.org/2008/09/23/how-should-we-deal-with-your-data/</link> <description>Building a Better Technical Ecosystem for Student News Organizations</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 13:35:43 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator> <item><title>By: Kevin Koehler</title><link>http://www.copress.org/2008/09/23/how-should-we-deal-with-your-data/comment-page-1/#comment-20</link> <dc:creator>Kevin Koehler</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:17:07 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.copress.org/?p=74#comment-20</guid> <description>Since a number of the questions ask for what could be considered sensitive information, publications&#039; identities should be kept confidential. Only the two or three people working directly on the study should have access the full thing.Our published report on the survey, and I think there&#039;s no doubt results ought be public, could include either a) only the answers in aggregate or b) also individual answer sets, with the names redacted.Include a list of papers that participated, just don&#039;t disclose what answers are whose. I&#039;ve seen university &quot;peer group&quot; studies conducted this way.I think that would strike the right balance between openness and protecting interests.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since a number of the questions ask for what could be considered sensitive information, publications&#8217; identities should be kept confidential. Only the two or three people working directly on the study should have access the full thing.</p><p>Our published report on the survey, and I think there&#8217;s no doubt results ought be public, could include either a) only the answers in aggregate or b) also individual answer sets, with the names redacted.</p><p>Include a list of papers that participated, just don&#8217;t disclose what answers are whose. I&#8217;ve seen university &#8220;peer group&#8221; studies conducted this way.</p><p>I think that would strike the right balance between openness and protecting interests.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 13/25 queries in 0.019 seconds using disk

Served from: www.copress.org @ 2012-02-09 03:44:49 -->
