Timothy Robbins emphasizes this goal in his guidelines for contributors to the latest Rebus Community iteration of the Open Anthology of Earlier American Literature. In a distillation I find particularly elegant, he notes: "In its best iteration, “open pedagogy” entails the spread of access to knowledge with an invitation to participate in the re-creation of new knowledge" ("Guidelines: Section Introductions.") 

In the current universe, Twitter also makes a number of predictions about users that could be used as proxy variables for economic and cultural characteristics. It can display things like your audience's net worth as well as indicators commonly linked to political orientation. Triangulating some of this data could allow for other forms of intended or unintended discrimination.

I've already been able to view a wide range (possibly spurious) information about my own reading audience through these analytics. On September 9th, 2019, I started a Twitter account for my 19th Century Open Pedagogy project and began serializing installments of critical edition, The Woman in White: Grangerized. The @OPP19c Twitter account has 62 followers as of September 17th.

Having followers means I have access to an audience analytics toolbar. Some of the account's followers are nineteenth-century studies or pedagogy organizations rather than individuals. Twitter tracks each account as an individual, however, and I was surprised to see some of the demographics Twitter broke them down into. (If you're one of these followers: thank you and sorry. I find this data a bit uncomfortable.)

Within this dashboard, I have a "Consumer Buying Styles" display that identifies categories such as "quick and easy" "ethnic explorers" "value conscious" and "weight conscious." These categories strike me as equal parts confusing and problematic: (Link to image expansion)

I have a "Marital Status" toolbar alleging that 52% of my audience is married and 49% single.

I also have a "Home Ownership" chart. (I'm presuming that the Elizabeth Gaskell House Museum's Twitter is counted as an owner...)

....and more

<iframe src="https://wisc.pb.unizin.org/undissertating19c/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=h5p_embed&id=12" width="959" height="353" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><script src="https://wisc.pb.unizin.org/app/plugins/h5p/h5p-php-library/js/h5p-resizer.js" charset="UTF-8"></script>

As of 2019, the website clickclickclick.click playfully dramatizes what your browser can tell people about your interactions with it.

This content is still under development. Please check back soon for the official version! If you would like to be a beta-reader for this section, I'd welcome your thoughts. Feel free to contact me at nsalmon [at] wisc [dot] edu.

In the current universe, Twitter also makes a number of predictions about users that could be used as proxy variables for economic and cultural characteristics. It can display things like your audience's net worth as well as indicators commonly linked to political orientation. Triangulating some of this data could allow for other forms of intended or unintended discrimination.

I've already been able to view a wide range (possibly spurious) information about my own reading audience through these analytics. On September 9th, 2019, I started a Twitter account for my 19th Century Open Pedagogy project and began serializing installments of critical edition, The Woman in White: Grangerized. The @OPP19c Twitter account has 62 followers as of September 17th.

Having followers means I have access to an audience analytics toolbar. Some of the account's followers are nineteenth-century studies or pedagogy organizations rather than individuals. Twitter tracks each account as an individual, however, and I was surprised to see some of the demographics Twitter broke them down into. (If you're one of these followers: thank you and sorry. I find this data a bit uncomfortable.)

Within this dashboard, I have a "Consumer Buying Styles" display that identifies categories such as "quick and easy" "ethnic explorers" "value conscious" and "weight conscious." These categories strike me as equal parts confusing and problematic: (Link to image expansion)

I have a "Marital Status" toolbar alleging that 52% of my audience is married and 49% single.

I also have a "Home Ownership" chart. (I'm presuming that the Elizabeth Gaskell House Museum's Twitter is counted as an owner...)

....and more

As of 2019, the website clickclickclick.click playfully dramatizes what your browser can tell people about your interactions with it.

This content is still under development. Please check back soon for the official version! If you would like to be a beta-reader for this section, I'd welcome your thoughts. Feel free to contact me at nsalmon [at] wisc [dot] edu.

Char Brooks's 2014 post "On Information Privilege" examines this topic from Brooks's perspective as a librarian and educator.

Duke University's Library 101 Toolkit provides additional information, classroom activities, student readings, and a CC-BY-NC-licensed infographic about information privilege. (Click infographic hyperlink for larger version.)

Works Cited:

Brooks, Char. "On Information Privilege" Infomational, 1 December 2014, https://infomational.com/2014/12/01/on-information-privilege/. Permalink: perma.cc/Y7AT-C6VZ.

"Information Privilege." Library 101 Tookit, Duke University, 13 August 2018, https://sites.duke.edu/library101_instructors/2018/08/13/information-privilege/. Permalink: perma.cc/DNY3-HHUM.

The main source images for this collage:

Borrow, George Henry, and E. J. Sullivan. "I did not like reviewing at all--it was not to my taste." Lavengro, Macmillan and Co., London, 1896, p. 296. British Library Flickr, HMNTS 012621.h.20. Accessed 1 February 2018.

Dodge, Mary Elizabeth. "A Terrible Tiger." When Life is Young: a Collection of Verse for Boys and Girls, Century Co., 1894, New York, p. 201. British Library Flickr. Accessed 1 February 2018.

Jeff Spies of the Center for Open Science provides an anecdote about this process at work in other fields in an interview with documentarians for the film Paywall. He notes:

"Research efficiency comes with increases in quality, increases in inclusivity, increases in diversity, increases in innovation. . . . I had a visit to the University of Belgrade a few years ago, and I was meeting with grad students before my lecture, and we were going around the room talking about what each researcher did and were working on for their thesis. And almost everyone in the room was working on implicit cognition. And it was amazing that there were so many students working on this particular area of research, and so I said, 'Why are all of you doing this? How has that become this be the area that's so popular?' And the immediate response was, 'Well, we can access the literature in this area.' 'What do you mean?' I said. 'Well, there is a norm of all the leading researchers in your field: all of you put your papers online. So, we can find them and we can know what’s going on right now in this literature that we can’t get access to in other sub-disciplines.' I was blown away by that, right? That they made some decisions about what to study based on what they could access (Paywall 00:16:19 - 00:17:54)