[e2e] was double blind, now reproduceable results
David P. Reed
dpreed at reed.com
Wed May 26 13:24:09 PDT 2004
At 03:23 PM 5/26/2004, Joe Touch wrote:
>There are valid results that can be derived from data that cannot be
>anonymized. That means the author should be willing to run tests for
>others at least, IMO.
I think this means that you agree with my point...
>>If the issue is prevarication, anonymizing protects the prevaricator.
>If there exists an anonymization that doesn't kill the experiment, sure.
>But that presumes:
> a) such anonymization exists for that experiment
> b) the data source is comfortable with the anonymization
>Neither necessarily applies.
Prevaricators (liars and fraudsters) are not normally considered good
actor(YMMV!). Hence I don't understand why you brought up data source
comfort as a relevant presumption. The prevaricator is protected in his
bad actions whatever the data source's comfort.
I will use the simpler word liar in the future to prevent such confusion.
More information about the end2end-interest