| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| practices:public_relations [2026/09/17 07:22] – Markup rendering sweep: wrap escapes, CLI flag typography, and heading quotes. Authored by Claude. karel.kubicek.claude | practices:public_relations [2026/09/17 08:12] (current) – Qualify root Artifacts and Contributing links; Authored by Claude karel.kubicek.claude |
|---|
| |
| <WRAP info> | <WRAP info> |
| Compare [[Practices:Notifying websites]], where 48.3% of the same 4,472 papers say they notified somebody and the field has a decade of controlled experiments on how to do it. The two activities are the same activity — telling somebody outside your paper what you found — and one of them has a literature. **The corpus cannot tell you whether press engagement is rare or merely unreported** — only that it is unreported. Both readings are live, and they imply the same thing for you: there is no accumulated practice to copy. Treat everything below as reasoning from three cases and from adjacent evidence, not as a summary of established practice.((This page was drafted by Claude and no named researcher has yet vouched for its judgement calls. Per the [[Contributing#subjective_statements|subjective-statement convention]] such statements should carry a name — add yours here, and to the two other footnotes on this page that flag a judgement rather than a measurement, if you agree with them.)) | Compare [[Practices:Notifying websites]], where 48.3% of the same 4,472 papers say they notified somebody and the field has a decade of controlled experiments on how to do it. The two activities are the same activity — telling somebody outside your paper what you found — and one of them has a literature. **The corpus cannot tell you whether press engagement is rare or merely unreported** — only that it is unreported. Both readings are live, and they imply the same thing for you: there is no accumulated practice to copy. Treat everything below as reasoning from three cases and from adjacent evidence, not as a summary of established practice.((This page was drafted by Claude and no named researcher has yet vouched for its judgement calls. Per the [[:Contributing#subjective_statements|subjective-statement convention]] such statements should carry a name — add yours here, and to the two other footnotes on this page that flag a judgement rather than a measurement, if you agree with them.)) |
| </WRAP> | </WRAP> |
| |
| **Fewer than a quarter of the papers that engaged with a law recorded an unqualified violation**; another 20.6% recorded a qualified one, and **37.6% stopped short of assessing compliance at all** — they measured a technical fact and named the legal provision it bears on, without asserting anything about whether it was breached. Among the 131 papers that both crawled and assessed a law — the population closest to a cookie-compliance study — 32.8% have at least one unqualified violation finding. | **Fewer than a quarter of the papers that engaged with a law recorded an unqualified violation**; another 20.6% recorded a qualified one, and **37.6% stopped short of assessing compliance at all** — they measured a technical fact and named the legal provision it bears on, without asserting anything about whether it was breached. Among the 131 papers that both crawled and assessed a law — the population closest to a cookie-compliance study — 32.8% have at least one unqualified violation finding. |
| |
| The enum records what a paper wrote, not why, so read that 37.6% as a description of the literature rather than as evidence of a shared norm. But the reason to write that way is independent of the count: a violation is a determination made by a regulator or a court about a specific controller's specific processing, using facts you do not have — the legal basis claimed, the contracts with processors, the consent record. What you measured is a signal that bears on it. **The sentence "we observed X, which is inconsistent with Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive absent consent" is defensible and quotable; "X% of sites break the law" is neither.**((No citation for the phrasing recommendation; it is a judgement, drafted by Claude, consistent with how the 402 legal papers in the corpus write. Per the [[Contributing#subjective_statements|subjective-statement convention]], add your name here if you agree.)) [[Practices:Legal enforcement]] covers what to do when you want the determination actually made. | The enum records what a paper wrote, not why, so read that 37.6% as a description of the literature rather than as evidence of a shared norm. But the reason to write that way is independent of the count: a violation is a determination made by a regulator or a court about a specific controller's specific processing, using facts you do not have — the legal basis claimed, the contracts with processors, the consent record. What you measured is a signal that bears on it. **The sentence "we observed X, which is inconsistent with Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive absent consent" is defensible and quotable; "X% of sites break the law" is neither.**((No citation for the phrasing recommendation; it is a judgement, drafted by Claude, consistent with how the 402 legal papers in the corpus write. Per the [[:Contributing#subjective_statements|subjective-statement convention]], add your name here if you agree.)) [[Practices:Legal enforcement]] covers what to do when you want the determination actually made. |
| |
| ===== The press release is where the exaggeration enters ===== | ===== The press release is where the exaggeration enters ===== |
| * **Cherry picking.** A minor result in the press release becomes the headline. This is the same mechanism as the stalkerware pull in {[bellini2024_safer]}, reported independently by a different community — which is about as much corroboration as this topic offers. **Assume the most quotable line in your press release is the one that will run, and audit the press release on that basis rather than on whether it is accurate overall.** | * **Cherry picking.** A minor result in the press release becomes the headline. This is the same mechanism as the stalkerware pull in {[bellini2024_safer]}, reported independently by a different community — which is about as much corroboration as this topic offers. **Assume the most quotable line in your press release is the one that will run, and audit the press release on that basis rather than on whether it is accurate overall.** |
| |
| The concrete preparation this implies is small: decide the one sentence, expect a 45-minute call to be reduced to it, and repeat it. If the interview lasts an hour and the story quotes one sentence, the only question that matters is which sentence you said more than once.((No citation for this last formulation; it is a restatement of {[smith2020_disseminating]}'s interview findings, not a measured result. Per the [[Contributing#subjective_statements|subjective-statement convention]], add your name here if you agree.)) | The concrete preparation this implies is small: decide the one sentence, expect a 45-minute call to be reduced to it, and repeat it. If the interview lasts an hour and the story quotes one sentence, the only question that matters is which sentence you said more than once.((No citation for this last formulation; it is a restatement of {[smith2020_disseminating]}'s interview findings, not a measured result. Per the [[:Contributing#subjective_statements|subjective-statement convention]], add your name here if you agree.)) |
| |
| ===== Publicity is an instrument, and also a confounder ===== | ===== Publicity is an instrument, and also a confounder ===== |
| * **Aggregate and per-target findings are separable** — {[zimmeck2023_gpc]} above. This is the mechanism that lets you publish the finding without publishing the target list. | * **Aggregate and per-target findings are separable** — {[zimmeck2023_gpc]} above. This is the mechanism that lets you publish the finding without publishing the target list. |
| * **Give the named party the finding before the journalist has it.** That is [[Practices:Notifying websites|notification]], and the disclosure timeline you followed is also your press timeline: a reporter who calls a company that has never heard of your work gets a "we dispute these findings" quote, and that quote is now in the story permanently. A company that has had your report for 90 days gets asked about its remediation instead. | * **Give the named party the finding before the journalist has it.** That is [[Practices:Notifying websites|notification]], and the disclosure timeline you followed is also your press timeline: a reporter who calls a company that has never heard of your work gets a "we dispute these findings" quote, and that quote is now in the story permanently. A company that has had your report for 90 days gets asked about its remediation instead. |
| * **Expect to be asked for the list.** Decide in advance what you will say to "which sites?" — including whether the artefact you published already answers it. If your dataset is public and contains the per-site labels, you have already published the list, whatever your paper says. See [[Artifacts]]. | * **Expect to be asked for the list.** Decide in advance what you will say to "which sites?" — including whether the artefact you published already answers it. If your dataset is public and contains the per-site labels, you have already published the list, whatever your paper says. See [[:Artifacts]]. |
| * **Your detector's false positives become named accusations.** A detector with 91% precision that flags 4,000 sites names about 360 of them wrongly. That is tolerable in a table and not tolerable in a headline. If you publish per-site results, the precision figure belongs next to them, in the same sentence. | * **Your detector's false positives become named accusations.** A detector with 91% precision that flags 4,000 sites names about 360 of them wrongly. That is tolerable in a table and not tolerable in a headline. If you publish per-site results, the precision figure belongs next to them, in the same sentence. |
| |
| * [[Design:Website selection]] and [[Design:Sampling]] — where your denominator comes from and what it is not. | * [[Design:Website selection]] and [[Design:Sampling]] — where your denominator comes from and what it is not. |
| * [[Design:Crawling location]] — why "the web" in your sentence needs a vantage point attached. | * [[Design:Crawling location]] — why "the web" in your sentence needs a vantage point attached. |
| * [[Artifacts]] — the per-site list you may have published without deciding to. | * [[:Artifacts]] — the per-site list you may have published without deciding to. |
| * [[Statistics:Biases]] — the gap between what you sampled and what you will be quoted as describing. | * [[Statistics:Biases]] — the gap between what you sampled and what you will be quoted as describing. |
| * [[Writing:Conferences]] — venue choice, which also decides when your paper becomes public and whether an embargo is available at all. | * [[Writing:Conferences]] — venue choice, which also decides when your paper becomes public and whether an embargo is available at all. |
