Using APIs for Data Collection on Social Media

REFERENCES

• Ausserhofer, J., and A. Maireder. 2013. National politics on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society 16(3): 291–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Backstrom, L., P. Boldi, M. Rosa, J. Ugander, and S. Vigna. 2011. Four degrees of separation. http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4570 (accessed April 10, 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., I. Rosenn, C. Marlow, C. Rosenn, and L. Adamic. 2012. The role of social networks in information diffusion. In WWW ‘12 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, 519–28. New York, NY: ACM
   Google Scholar
• Baron, N. 2008. Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bechmann, A. 2014a. Managing the interoperable self. In The ubiquitous Internet, ed. A. Bechmann and S. Lombord. New York, NY: Routledge, in press.
   Google Scholar
• Bechmann, A. 2014b. Non-informed consent cultures: Privacy policies and app contracts on Facebook. Journal of Media Business Studies 11(1): 21–38.
   Google Scholar
• Bechmann, A., and S. Lomborg. 2012. Mapping actor roles in social media: Different perspectives on value creation in theories of user participation. New Media & Society 15(5): 765–81 (online first, doi:10.1177/1461444812462853).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, M., E. Bakshy, M. Burke, and B. Karrer. 2013. Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks. Paper presented at the CHI: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, April–May.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, D.M. 2011. The computational turn. Thinking about the digital humanities. Culture Machine 12. . http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/view/440/470 (accessed April 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Black, A., C. Mascaro, M. Gallagher, and S.P. Goggins. 2012. Twitter Zombie: Architecture for capturing, socially transforming and analyzing the twittersphere. In GROUP’12: Proceedings of the 17th ACM international conference on Supporting group work, 229–38. New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• boyd, d., and K. Crawford. 2012. Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 662–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brügger, N. 2011. Web archiving: Between past, present, and future. In The Blackwell handbook of Internet studies, ed. M. Consalvo and C.M. Ess, 24–42. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Bruns, A., and J. Burgess. 2012. Researching news discussion on Twitter: New methodologies. Journalism Studies 13(5–6): 801–14 (online first: doi:10.1080/1461670X.2012.664428).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruns, A., and Y.E. Liang. 2012. Tools and methods for capturing Twitter data during natural disasters. First Monday 17(4), . online. http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3937/3193 (accessed April 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Bollier, D. 2010. The promise and peril of big data. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. . http://www.thinkbiganalytics.com/uploads/Aspen-Big_Data.pdf (accessed March 1, 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Courtois, C., P. Mechant, and L. Marez. 2011. Teenage uploaders on YouTube: Networked public expectancies, online feedback preference, and received on-platform feedback. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14(5): 315–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Smedt, T., and W. Daelemans. 2012. Pattern for Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 13(1): 2063–67.
   Google Scholar
• Ess, C.M. 2009. Digital media ethics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ess, C.M., and AoIR Ethics Working Committee. 2002. Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. . http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf (accessed June 9, 2012).
   Google Scholar
• European Union [the European Parliament and the Council]. 1995. Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Off. J. L 281(23/11/1995): 31–50.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, C., K. Boersma, A. Albrechtslund, and M. Sandoval (Eds.). 2012. Internet and Surveillance: The Challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gawk. 2011. . http://www.gnu.org/software/gawk (accessed March 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Gephi. 2011. . http://gephi.org (accessed March 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Giglietto, F., L. Rossi, and D. Bennato 2012. The open laboratory: Limits and possibilities of using Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube as a research data source. Journal of Technology in Human Services 30(3–4): 145–59.
   Google Scholar
• González-Bailón, S., N. Wang, A. Rivero, J. Borge-Holthoefer, and Y. Moreno. 2012. Assessing the bias in communication networks sampled from Twitter. . http://ssrn.com/abstract=2185134 (accessed April 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, D.L., B. Shneiderman, and M.A. Smith 2011. Analyzing social media with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Herring, S.C. 2010. Web content analysis: Expanding the paradigm. In The International handbook of Internet research, ed. J. Hunsinger, M. Allen, and L. Klastrup, 233–50. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Honeycutt, C., and Herring, S.C. 2009. Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. In Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42), 1–10. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Horan, T.J. 2012. ‘Soft’ versus ‘hard’ news on microblogging networks. Information, Communication & Society 16(1): 43–60 (online first: doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.649774).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huberman, B.A., D. Romero, and F. Wu. 2009. Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday 14(1), . online. http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2317/2063 (accessed on April 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Java, A., X. Song, T. Finin, and B. Tseng. 2007. Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the Joint 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop 2007, 56–65. New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karpf, D. 2012. Social science research methods in Internet time. Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 639–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer, A.D. I. 2012. The spread of emotion via Facebook. In CHI ‘12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 767–70. New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Kwak, H., C. Lee, H. Park, and S. Moon. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In WWW ‘10: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, 591–600. New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Leskovec, J., and E. Horwitz. 2007. Planetary-scale views on an instant-messaging network. Microsoft Research technical report (Microsoft Research technical report MSR-TR-2006-186). . http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/70389/tr-2006-186.pdf (accessed April 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Lomborg, S. 2011. Social media. A genre perspective. doctoral dissertation, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Lomborg, S. 2012. Researching communicative practice: Web archiving in qualitative social media research. Journal of Technology in Human Services 30(3–4): 219–31.
   Google Scholar
• Lomborg, S. 2013. Personal Internet archives and ethics. Research Ethics 9(1): 20–31.
   Google Scholar
• Lotan, G., E. Graeff, M. Ananny, D. Gaffney, I. Pearce, and d. boyd. 2011. The revolutions were tweeted: Information flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. International Journal of Communications 5: 1375–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahrt, M., and M. Scharkow 2013. The value of big data in digital media research, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57(1): 20–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markham, A. 2012. Moving into the flow: Using a network perspective to explore complexity in Internet contexts. In Network analysis: Methodological challenges, ed. S. Lomborg, 45–58 (. CFI Monograph Series, vol. 14). Aarhus, Denmark: Center for Internet Studies, Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Markham, A.N., and E.A. Buchanan. 2012. Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). . http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf (accessed April 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• McChesney, R. 2007. Communication revolution: Critical junctures and the future of media. New York, NY: New Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morstatter, F., J. Pfeffer, H. Liu, and K.M. Carley. 2013. Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from Twitter's Streaming API with Twitter's Firehose. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2013), Boston, MA, July.
   Google Scholar
• Naaman, M., J. Boase, and C.-H. Lai. 2010. Is it really about me? Message content in social awareness streams. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW-2010), 189–92. New York, NY: ACM
   Google Scholar
• Neuhaus, F., and T. Webmoor. 2012 Agile ethics for massified research and visualization. Information, Communication & Society 15(1): 43–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohm, P. 2010. Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization, UCLA Law Review 57: 1701–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OpenRefine. 2012. . http://openrefine.org (accessed March 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Reips, U.-D., and P. Garaizar. 2011. Mining Twitter: Microblogging as a source for psychological wisdom of the crowds. Behavior Research Methods 43: 635–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, R. 2012. Digital methods. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Serrano, A. 2011. The social media explosion: By the numbers. Fiscal Times, . September 12. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/09/12/The-Social-Media-Explosion-By-the-Numbers.aspx#page1 (accessed July 6, 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M.A., B. Schneiderman, N. Milic-Frayling, E.M. Rodrigues, V. Barash, C. Dunne, T. Capone, A. Perer, and E. Gleave. 2009. Analyzing (social media) networks with NodeXL. C&T ‘09: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on communities and technologies, 255–64. New York, NY: ACM
   Google Scholar
• Stutzman, F., R. Gross, and A. Acquisti. 2012. Silent listeners: The evolution of privacy and disclosure on Facebook. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality 4(2): 7–41.
   Google Scholar
• Vicente, C.R., I. Assent, and C.S. Jensen. 2011. effective privacy-preserving online route planning. In 12th IEEE International Conference on Mobile Data Management (MDM), 119–28. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weller, K., and C. Puschmann. 2011. Twitter for scientific communication: How can citations/references be identified and measured? In Proceedings of the ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci ‘11), 1–4. . http://journal.webscience.org/500 (accessed April 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Wu, S., W.A. Mason, J.M. Hofman, and D.J. Watts. 2011. Who says what to whom on Twitter. In WWW ‘11: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on the World Wide Web, 705–14. New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Yahoo! Pipes. 2007. . http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes (accessed March 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• YourTwapperKeeper. 2011. . https://github.com/540co/yourTwapperKeeper (accessed March 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• van Dijck, J. 2009. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society 31(1): 41–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmer, M. 2010. “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics & Information Technology 12(4): 313–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar