A small problem with categories for protected interviews

This is a note to @rebelethno and especially @amelia. I have run into a small glitch. It is this: in order to protect the privacy of informants, some material (mostly interviews) was stored in a special protected category, accessible only to ethnographers in POPREBEL. The problem with that is this this category is not divided by language. if you want me to continue making the distinction by linguistic community, I need to fix the problem somehow. There are several ways to do it:

  • I could split the category into three categories by language.
  • At the moment there are only four topics, two in Polish, one in Czech and the other in German. I could also manually assign to the appropriate language just these four topics. This operation (“hardcoding”) is simple, but ugly and brittle: every topic that you might add in the future will also need to be hardcoded.

So, my question to you:

  1. Are you still interested in an analysis by language community? Should we keep the distinction between languages in the graphs?
  2. Do you plan to add more topics to the protected category?

On the basis of your answer, I will fix the code.

Update on this: I found more protected categories. So, at the moment, we have:

  • 5 public categories, in Polish, Czech, German, Serbian and English
  • 3 protected categories, in Polish, Czech and German
  • 1 category called “Protected ethnographic data” – the one with four topics in three different languages.

Is the latter really necessary? Would it be acceptable to move the topics therein to the protected categories of the relative language?

And a further problem: I see @rebelethno have been coding themselves, or each other. Example: https://edgeryders.eu/annotator/topics/14626

Should I include these annotations in the data analysis? In this case, should I assign it to a different forum (the previous analysis distinguished fora by the language used for the debate. This is English, but it is a meta-discussion, unlike the International Forum).

I think it’s a great idea to move the topics to protected categories in respective languages! Let’s see what others think.

1 Like

We definitely want to keep the three language communities separate (for comparisons). The second question - I do not know. The ethnographers must answer.

1 Like

Ok, so my proposal:

For this problem, I propose to move the 4 topics currently in the “Protected ethnographic data” cat into the protected language-appropriate category, and then delete the Protected ethnographic data" category itself.

For this, I can make a more intelligent proposal when I understand the role of this coding activity in POPREBEL. Can anyone help me understand?

@alberto speaking for myself, I moved all the data from the old Czech protected category into the new established one V Česku long time ago, so Czech Protected Category can be deleted completed. Not sure if this applied to the Polish @Maniamana and German @Djan


I can tell you that was helpful also for outsiders, have a clear way to get to look at the data, or just read, some contents are really interesting. It also goes faster, especially if you are using machine translation for the entire pages, then you can easily view all texts or post titles in the browser page translated from one language.

1 Like

We discussed this at today’s meeting.

@jitka.kralova already did this. She offered to ask @Maniamana and @Djan and get back to me.

@Jan has decided that these should be left out of the graph.

Hi @alberto - whatever Poland related in the “protected ethnographic data” category can go! Thank you for the idea to clean this up :slight_smile:

1 Like

Hi @Djan What’s the situation with German data and the ‘Protected ethnographic data’ category? Can we follow Alberto’s suggestion and move all German-language data to the protected category for German?

hey Richard, I already moved all relevant German language interviews to the protected area. Depending on further success, I will be adding further interviews there as well.

1 Like