Pamela Oliver
pamelaoliver.bsky.social
Pamela Oliver
@pamelaoliver.bsky.social
Professor Emerita of Sociology, U Wisconsin - Madison. she/her/they
I research social movements & protest, especially Black; I do advocacy around criminal legal system. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7643-1008
is your database public?
November 25, 2025 at 9:16 PM
I don't really know but from my vantage, once you saw references to "BIPOC people" you could see the end coming. The original was trying to acknowledge the distinct experiences of Black and Indigenous and other people of color, not lump people into some sort of super-category.
November 25, 2025 at 3:45 PM
If you are going to advocate, please consider asking for work on the Black movement AFTER 1965. My own efforts to characterize the 1990s and 2000s using newspaper data are just a minor beginning. But a lot of "history" happened between 1965 and the 2014 rise of Black Lives Matter.
November 25, 2025 at 3:42 PM
I recently fought with a guy who wanted me to stay away from the cable machine while he LEFT IT to go rest in another part of the gym. I told him if he wanted to hog the machine he had to at least stay there at the machine. He was mad.
November 23, 2025 at 8:11 PM
As I said the last time he brought this up, my gym used to have "do not rest on the equipment" signs posted on every machine. They've been gone since COVID.
November 23, 2025 at 8:11 PM
Thanks for the information. It does sound like a mess.
November 18, 2025 at 8:19 PM
That was what I found when I started digging into imprisonment statistics.
November 17, 2025 at 8:42 PM
So we've already established that we agree about giving credit, but note that academics put their names on their manuscripts & publications. School photographers sometimes embed their credit right in the pictures. Some standard technology for embedding credit in the photo would really help.
November 17, 2025 at 7:37 PM
ugh
November 17, 2025 at 3:06 AM
Yup. Not disagreeing that moral people should do the work to give credit. Just saying that figuring out how to make credit-giving more automatic would be more effective perhaps by demanding that "free" sites change file naming conventions and/or embedding credit in the image itself.
November 16, 2025 at 6:08 PM
Not to be excessively argumentative, but when I post my own work on the Internet, my name is part of the filename.
November 16, 2025 at 3:42 AM
Sure. And also if that were part of the filename in the first place it would be that much more likely that the photographer would get credited by anyone who used the file, right? These days journal article downloads are finally having long filenames like that.
November 16, 2025 at 3:40 AM
And I said that if the editor didn't trust the initial positive reviewers they should tell the author that the revised MS would go to new reviewers. In sociology we were having a problem with editors repeatedly adding new reviewers. Some papers had 10-12 reviews from one journal. It was bad.
November 16, 2025 at 3:33 AM
The editor in the OP discounted the 2 positive reviews, discounted the satisfaction of the previously-negative reviewer who said they were now satisfied, and rejected on the basis of review #4, which was 1 negative out of 4. Genuinely curious about how you could possibly defend that.
November 16, 2025 at 3:24 AM
Nothing coming to mind. I have seen at least drafts of papers with these as the dependent variables (but didn't save the citations, sorry). Any study of the effect of the statements would have to control for the conditions under which the statements get issued, i.e., when the movement is popular.
November 15, 2025 at 11:06 PM
I'm old enough to remember when my high school banned discussion of UN Day because the United Nations was "too controversial." I was also subjected to anti-Communism curricula. That is, conservatives have long banned the speech they disagree with. (Knowing you don't disagree.)
November 14, 2025 at 12:11 AM
Yup. Common practice. I'm recalling an early-1970s panel on abortion that included only male panelists.
November 12, 2025 at 4:14 PM
I think excluding original positive reviewers & adding a new reviewer is bad editor practice. If editor wanted to scuttle the paper they should have done it in the first place. If they had reservations or planned an additional reviewer, they should have told the authors in the 1st decision letter.
November 12, 2025 at 12:09 AM
This may already have been said by others and I'm not an insider in my community, but I believe many places (including Chicago and where I live) have organized communication networks to verify sightings and reduce false rumors.
November 7, 2025 at 11:03 PM
And then annoying when the editor adds a new reviewer who brings up a new set of concerns which the editor weighs more heavily than your positive evaluation.
November 7, 2025 at 12:37 AM
This is out in the weeds but in editing a small local website I've learned that it isn't easy to keep track of whom to credit when downloading from free stock photo places. You have take separate notes about photo credit and then manually put it in a caption. Credit isn't part of the download.
November 6, 2025 at 7:28 PM
This. About 90% of political conversation and punditry seems to embody the inability to understand that most people are not average and that patterns of residential segregation and sorting mean that different places have different political climates. + the idea that people in cities are not "real"
November 4, 2025 at 3:20 PM