Seven Years Ago, CERN Gave Open Access A Huge Boost; Now It's Doing The Same For Open Data

from the tim-berners-lee-would-be-proud dept

Techdirt readers will be very familiar with CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research (the acronym comes from the French version: Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire). It's best known for two things: being the birthplace of the World Wide Web, and home to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator. Over 12,000 scientists of 110 nationalities, from institutes in more than 70 countries, work at CERN. Between them, they produce a huge quantity of scientific papers. That made CERN's decision in 2013 to release nearly all of its published articles as open access one of the most important milestones in the field of academic publishing. Since 2014, CERN has published 40,000 open access articles. But as Techdirt has noted, open access is just the start. As well as the final reports on academic work, what is also needed is the underlying data. Making that data freely available allows others to check the analysis, and to use it for further investigation -- for example, by combining it with data from elsewhere. The push for open data has been underway for a while, and has just received a big boost from CERN:

The four main LHC collaborations (ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb) have unanimously endorsed a new open data policy for scientific experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which was presented to the CERN Council today. The policy commits to publicly releasing so-called level 3 scientific data, the type required to make scientific studies, collected by the LHC experiments. Data will start to be released approximately five years after collection, and the aim is for the full dataset to be publicly available by the close of the experiment concerned. The policy addresses the growing movement of open science, which aims to make scientific research more reproducible, accessible, and collaborative.

The level 3 data released can contribute to scientific research in particle physics, as well as research in the field of scientific computing, for example to improve reconstruction or analysis methods based on machine learning techniques, an approach that requires rich data sets for training and validation.

CERN's open data portal already contains 2 petabytes of data -- a figure that is likely to rise rapidly, since LHR experiments typically generate massive quantities of data. However, the raw data will not in general be released. The open data policy document (pdf) explains why:

This is due to the complexity of the data, metadata and software, the required knowledge of the detector itself and the methods of reconstruction, the extensive computing resources necessary and the access issues for the enormous volume of data stored in archival media. It should be noted that, for these reasons, general direct access to the raw data is not even available to individuals within the collaboration, and that instead the production of reconstructed data (i.e. Level-3 data) is performed centrally. Access to representative subsets of raw data -- useful for example for studies in the machine learning domain and beyond -- can be released together with Level-3 formats, at the discretion of each experiment.

There will also be Level 2 data, "provided in simplified, portable and self-contained formats suitable for educational and public understanding purposes". CERN says that it may create "lightweight" environments to allow such data to be explored more easily. Virtual computing environments for the Level 3 data will be made available to aid the re-use of this primary research material. Although the data is being released using a Creative Commons CC0 waiver, acknowledgements of the data's origin are required, and any new publications that result must be clearly distinguishable from those written by the original CERN teams.

As with the move to open access in 2013, the new open data policy is unlikely to have much of a direct impact for people outside the high energy physics community. But it does represent an extremely strong and important signal that CERN believes open data must and will become the norm.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: experiments, knowledge, open access, open data, science, sharing
Companies: cern

Did The NY Times Give Up Its Journalism Standards The Second Facebook Threw A Few Million Its Way?

from the seems-like-a-problem dept

Last month, we discussed how Facebook was apparently forking over truckloads of cash to various media companies to get them to use Facebook Live, the company's new livestreaming video platform. This arrangement struck us as odd -- and potentially an FTC violation, in that these media companies are basically promoting and endorsing Facebook's product, after getting paid millions of dollars, without ever disclosing the payments and the relationship. That seems... questionable. Apparently the two largest recipients of the cash were Buzzfeed and the NY Times, who each got over $3 million to stream these videos. Buzzfeed, for its part, has embraced the ridiculousness of this situation with Buzzfeedian gusto, putting on stunts like livestreaming exploding a watermelon with rubberbands. But that's kind of what you'd expect from Buzzfeed.

The NY Times, on the other hand, is a bit of a different beast. The newspaper likes to pride itself on being serious, careful, thoughtful journalism. And while that's often a lot more what the people there tell themselves than reality, it does raise some questions about what the NY Times is doing with that $3+ million and how journalistic it is. Apparently, I'm not the only one to wonder about this, as the NY Times recently appointed public editor, Liz Spayd, is concerned about what the NY Times is doing here as well.

here’s the problem. After watching countless hours of live video in the past few weeks, I have hit upon many that are either plagued by technical malfunctions, feel contrived, drone on too long, ignore audience questions or are simply boring, by I imagine most anyone’s standards.

Too many don’t live up to the journalistic quality one typically associates with The New York Times. Take one produced at the Republican convention, where we’re on the floor chatting up delegates. The idea is right, but the sound cuts in and out for three long minutes and becomes so grating that one Facebook viewer messaged: “WOW. THE AUDIO IS HORRIBLE!” Another added: “Unwatchable,” and one humorously said, “RIP headphone users...” Another video on raging fires in Canada shows the narrator staring off-screen while the sound keeps breaking up. Not a single flame ever appears. One viewer, April Simpson, sent in this comment: “It would be a much more effective interview if you could roll in some of the amazing video of the fire. Seriously, nyt contact me — I could help you with all of this.”

And in a category all its own, there is a video of an editor with two reporters who are pitching their stories in hopes of getting good play on the home page. It’s an odd meeting — of a type I’ve never seen nor heard of in my 30 years in newsrooms. And it turns out it was more of a simulation to show the kinds of conversations that take place in a newsroom. In other words, it was posed.

Now, to be clear, I think there's value in experimentation -- and if you don't fail with your experiments, you're probably not experimenting enough. But when Facebook is throwing millions at publications like the NY Times, some of these don't feel so much like "experimenting with this neat new technology" but more like "oh, fuck, we need to make more videos because we promised Facebook in exchange for all this cash." Indeed, Spayd suggests the quantity over quality approach is a part of the problem here:

On the one hand, it has before it a compelling new form of journalism, a young and eager audience, and the crown prince of social media opening up its checkbook. On the other hand, if you’re producing about 120 videos a month, implementing good quality control can take a back seat.

And, when the paper's editor defends all these videos under the "this is how we experiment" banner, Spayd responds, rightly, that there are ways to experiment that still live up to the kind of quality standards the NY Times likes to think it has:

But this particular experiment veers significantly from The Times’s past approach to new journalism forms. The newsroom has shown that innovation doesn’t have to equate with poor quality. Whether it was with interactive graphics, virtual reality or podcasts, The Times is a model for innovating at a thoughtful, measured pace, but with quality worthy of its name.

This time, that’s not the case. It’s as if we passed over beta and went straight to bulk.

Does anyone believe that this would play out this way if Facebook hadn't added 3 million reasons for the NY Times to go for bulk? I think that's the bigger story here. Spayd mentions the cash in passing, but doesn't spend much time on it. It still seems like the real issue. I get that the NY Times is a business and that it needs to make money, but usually there's a separation. Here, when a private company is paying for a specific type of coverage that is promoting their own technology -- and the NY Times isn't disclosing it, while pumping out lots of low quality content, it should raise a lot of questions about why that's okay.

Filed Under: experiments, facebook live, money
Companies: facebook, ny times

DailyDirt: Science With (And Without) Verification

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The scientific method has undoubtedly advanced the growth of knowledge, but with the enormous amount of data that can be collected now, it can be difficult to turn all that information into reliable and understandable facts. On the other hand, science is also pushing the boundaries of what can possibly be measured -- but can we still call it science if we're proposing unknowable multiverses and spatial dimensions that can never be explored? Almost anyone can publish their crazy ideas -- and sometimes those sketchy papers submitted to arxiv.org lead to successful work proving an infinite number of twin primes. Do the crackpots outnumber the "real" scientists? Does it matter?

• Advances in cosmology are pulling away from experimental verification. Some theorists argue that their theories to explain the universe may not be verifiable by observations -- and that it doesn't matter. They assert we're in a "post-empirical" period for understanding fundamental physics. [url]
• Verification of experimental results is a fundamental aspect of science, right? Providing more funding for researchers to perform replication experiments may be increasingly necessary to ensure our scientific knowledge isn't merely based on anecdotes (or bad experiments or biased analysis). [url]
• Will traditional scholarly journals have a future? There's a growing movement to decentralize the peer review and publication process that doesn't require a for-profit scholarly journal. Yay? [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: arxiv, cosmology, crackpots, experiments, journals, knowledge, multiverses, peer review, physics, prime numbers, replication, science, scientific method, verification

YouTube Has Paid $1 Billion To Copyright Holders Via ContentID; What Happened To Stories About It Destroying Content?

from the curious... dept

Remember those days when YouTube was "killing" the entertainment industry. You don't even have to look back very far. There are artists who still insist that YouTube is killing creativity and is nothing but a den of piracy. Viacom spent years trying to argue that YouTube was the equivalent of Napster, but for video, until that lawsuit finally settled just a few months ago.

However, reality is looking pretty different these days. A couple months ago, Businessweek had a big cover story about how YouTube has become Hollywood's "hit factory", and just this week, YouTube revealed that its ContentID program, which allows copyright holders to monetize unauthorized uses of their works, had paid out over $1 billion since its inception. This isn't to say there aren't problems with ContentID. We've noted in the past the problems with false flagging, revenue diversion and other issues -- but the simple fact is that it appears to be making money for content creators. Actually, quite a lot of money.

And this brings us back to a key point that we've hit on over and over and over again: given a chance to operate, these business models tend to come about without the need to pass draconian copyright laws and without the need to completely takedown and destroy businesses. When allowed to thrive, innovate and experiment, it's only natural that workable business models develop. We've seen it over and over again in the industry. The recording industry insisted radio was going to kill the entire industry -- and then it made the industry into a massive juggernaut. The movie industry insisted that the VCR would be its "Boston Strangler," but four years later home video outpaced the box office in generating revenue for the studios.

The continuous claims of "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" on copyright issues is so clearly bogus. As we've argued for years, it's the innovations of the tech industry that keep saving the entertainment industry over and over and over again. There's no "war" between the two when it appears that Silicon Valley is the one supplying the "weapons" that's making Hollywood very, very wealthy.

But when will those folks in Hollywood learn this? Instead, they keep attacking these new services, demanding more copyright "enforcement" and blocking these forms of innovation. Who knows what other innovations might have occurred had the industry not shut down Veoh. Or Grokster. Before the US government completely shut down Megaupload, it was experimenting with new revenue models were attracting the interest of lots of famous musicians. Imagine if that had been allowed to continue. Who knows what other kinds of cool business models would be in place today making more money for artists.

Attacking innovation seems to be the legacy entertainment industry's default position, no matter how many times that innovation actually opens up new markets, provides new revenue streams and makes pretty much everyone better off. Oh, except some of the gatekeepers. Those guys tend not to be able to keep quite as much of the revenue generated by these new platforms. And maybe, just maybe, that's the real reason they're so angry about innovation.

Filed Under: business models, contentid, copyright, culture, experiments, hollywood, innovation, silicon valley, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

Law Professor Claims Any Internet Company 'Research' On Users Without Review Board Approval Is Illegal

from the you-sure-you-want-to-go-there dept

For many years I've been a huge fan of law professor James Grimmelmann. His legal analysis on various issues is often quite valuable, and I've quoted him more than a few times. However, he's now arguing that the now infamous Facebook happiness experiment and the similarly discussed OkCupid "hook you up with someone you should hate" experiments weren't just unethical, but illegal. Grimmelmann, it should be noted, was one of the loudest voices in arguing (quite vehemently) that these experiments were horrible and dangerous, and that the academic aspect of Facebook's research violated long-standing rules.

But his new argument takes it even further, arguing not just that they were unethical, but flat out illegal, based on his reading of the Common Rule and a particular Maryland law that effectively extends the Common Rule. The Common Rule basically says that if you're doing "research involving human subjects" with federal funds, you need "informed consent" and further approval from an institutional review board (IRB), which basically all research universities have in place, who have to approve all research. The idea is to avoid seriously harmful or dangerous experiments. The Maryland law takes the Common Rule and says it applies not just to federally funded research but "all research conducted in Maryland."

To Grimmelmann, this is damning for both companies -- and basically all companies doing any research involving people in Maryland. In fact, he almost gleefully posts a letter he got back from Facebook concerning this issue and alerted the company to the Maryland law. Why so gleeful? Because Facebook's Associate General Counsel for Privacy, Edward Palmieri, repeatedly referred to what Facebook did as "research," leading Grimmelmann to play the "gotcha" card, as if that proves that Facebook's efforts were subject to that Maryland law (making it subject to the Common Rule). He further then overreacts to Palmieri, noting (accurately, in our opinion) that the Maryland law does not apply to Facebook's research as Facebook is declaring that the company "is above the law that applies to everyone else."

Except... all of that is suspect. Facebook is not claiming it is above the law that applies to everyone else. It claims that the law does not apply to it... or basically any company doing research to improve its services. Grimmelmann insists that his reading of Maryland's House Bill 917 is the only possible reading, but he may be hard pressed to find many who actually agree with that interpretation. The Common Rule's definition of "research" is fairly broad, but I don't think it's nearly as broad as Grimmelmann wants it to be. Here it is:

Research means a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.

I think it's that last bit that may be problematic for Grimmelmann. It focuses on academic research "designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge." That wording, while unfortunately vague, really appears to be focused on those who are doing research for the purpose of more publicly available knowledge. And while perhaps the Facebook effort touches on that, since it eventually became published research, it still seems like a stretch. Facebook wasn't doing its research for the purpose of contributing to generalizable knowledge -- but to improve the Facebook experience. Based on that, the company also shared some of that data publicly. Similarly, OkCupid's research was to improve its own services.

But under Grimmelmann's interpretation of the law, you'd have some seriously crazy results. Basic a/b testing of different website designs could be designated as illegal research without IRB approval or informed consent. I was just reading about a service that lets you put as many headlines on a blog post as you want and it automatically rotates them, trying to optimize which one gets the best results. Would that require informed consent and an IRB? Just the fact that companies call it "research" doesn't make it research under the Common Rule definition. How about a film studio taking a survey after showing a movie. The movie manipulates the emotions of the "human subjects" and then does research on their reactions. Does that require "informed consent" and an IRB?

How about a basic taste test -- Coke or Pepsi? Which do you prefer? It's research. It's developing knowledge via "human subjects." But does anyone honestly think the law for running a taste test means that any company setting up such a taste test first needs to get an IRB to approve it? The results of Grimmelmann's interpretation of the law here are nonsensical. Grimmelmann is clearly upset about the original research, and certainly there were lots of people who felt it was creepy and potentially inappropriate. But Grimmelmann's focus on actively punishing these companies is reaching obsession levels.

For one thing, many academic journals require Common Rule compliance for everything they publish, regardless of funding source. So my colleague Leslie Meltzer Henry and I wrote a letter to the journal that published the Facebook emotional manipulation study, pointing out the obvious noncompliance. For another, nothing in Facebook’s user agreement warned users they were signing up to be test subjects. So we wrote a second letter to the Federal Trade Commission, which tends to get upset when companies’ privacy policies misrepresent things. And for yet another, researchers from universities that do take federal funding can’t just escape their own Common Rule obligations by “IRB laundering” everything through a private company. So we wrote a third letter to the federal research ethics office about the Cornell IRB’s questionable review of two Cornell researchers’ collaborations with Facebook.

And that's before the letters to Facebook and OkCupid -- and, of course, to Maryland's attorney general, Doug Gansler. Of course, if Gansler actually tried to enforce such an interpretation of the law (which is not out of the question, given how quick many attorney generals are to jump on grandstanding issues that will get headlines), it would represent a very dangerous result -- one in which very basic forms of experiments and modifications in all sorts of industries (beyond just the internet) would suddenly create a risk of law-breaking. That's a result incompatible with basic common sense. Grimmelmann's response to that seems to be "but the law is the law," but that's based entirely on his stretched interpretation of that law, one that many others would likely challenge.

Filed Under: common rule, experiments, human subjects, informed consent, irb, james grimmelmann, maryland, research
Companies: facebook, okcupid

Valve Tries To Charge People Based On How Likable They Are: Trolls Pay Full Price

from the perhaps-we-should-try-that dept

We've talked plenty of times about unique business models and experiments by Valve Software. it's latest experiment sounds particularly interesting, if perhaps difficult to pull off well. It appears that the company wants to try to charge jerks more -- but let likable people play free (story found via Slashdot). The specifics are a bit vague, but the plan is for the game DOTA 2. Valve's Gabe Newell has hinted at this:

"The issue that we're struggling with quite a bit is something I've kind of talked about before, which is how do you properly value people's contributions to a community?” he said, reflecting on a discussion he had with Develop last year.

Last year Newell told Develop that “the games industry has this broken model, which is one price for everyone. That’s actually a bug, and it’s something that we want to solve through our philosophy of how we create entertainment products".

[....]

“An example is – and this is something as an industry we should be doing better – is charging customers based on how much fun they are to play with.

“So, in practice, a really likable person in our community should get Dota 2 for free, because of past behaviour in Team Fortress 2. Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice.”

And the latest news is that they are going beyond this crazy idea into seeing what's actually possible:

“We're trying to figure out ways so that people who are more valuable to everybody else [are] recognized and accommodated. We all know people where if they're playing we want to play, and there are other people where if they're playing we would [rather] be on the other side of the planet.

"It's just a question of coming up with mechanisms that recognize and reward people who are doing things that are valuable to other groups of people."

I'm curious as to how exactly this would work. I think there are lots of community-based properties would love to be able to charge trolls more. However, this could be really, really difficult to work in practice, and create some problems, depending on what the overall goals are. It would be nice, of course, if you could come up with a perfect system to get rid of trolls, but distinguishing true trolls can often be much more difficult in practice than in theory.

Filed Under: dota 2, experiments, gabe newell, pricing, trolls
Companies: valve

DailyDirt: Measurements That Make You Go Hmmmm...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Replicating experiments is an important part of science. If you can't repeat an experiment, then whatever you observed could just be a fluke. But even if measurements can be repeated reliably, it doesn't mean that they can be explained easily. Here are just a few examples of some weird measurements that physicists are still trying to explain.

• Neutrinos have been observed to travel faster than the speed of light -- twice, in two different experiments. But the two experiments were done by the same group of physicists at the CERN laboratory in Switzerland, so independent verification is still pending and these weird measurements could just be an error of some kind. [url]
• There are many unsolved mysteries in the field of physics. Here's a list of just ten. Nice job security in waiting for a proton to decay in a billion trillion trillion years.... [url]
• The Large Hadron Collider could get a glimpse of the 'God Particle' after searching through the remnants of hundreds of particle collisions. Physicists expect to find the Higgs boson at around 120 to 125 GeV.... [url]
• To discover more interesting science-related stuff, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: experiments, god particle, higgs boson, large hadron collider, physics, protons, science, speed of light