What affiliations are using the app?

We got this question from someone through someone.

Privacy policy & disclaimer:

Your data is your data.
In the spirit of transparency we provide you with these templates of standard social web app privacy policies and terms of service to fully explain the data involved in Example.org. There are two types:

data which is typical data that most social websites use to make sure their app is user friendly and to let users trust each other and collaborate, and

data which is your fieldlinguistics data (your "Corpus")
In both cases, we don't use your private data, and we have no partnerships with third parties. In fact, we try to avoid collecting any sensitive private data about you. We would also be happy to give you your private data, just request it.

However : we are a team of Open Source volunteers, as such we have no legal team, no customer support team and we want you to know that Example.org and the software that runs on it is provided AS IS, WITH NO WARENTEE, NO FORMAL SUPPORT AND NO GUARENTEE THAT IT WILL OR WILL NOT DO ANYTHING. If you are worried about these things, we prefer that you set up your own private server so that we don't have to worry about the legal implications of hosting your data.

We are not sure why they want to know htis, maybe for a granting agency? or maybe to know if real people are using the app? either way we cant report this because its a violation of our privacy policy.

@hisakonog

@hisakonog we cant say which databases are tied to which instittution, unless they choose to put in their team's public details.

We don't have any way of looking up all the teams to see if they put their affiliation, apart from if you know their share url eg http://example.org/lingllama

But we can get a rough anonymous list of the most active academic organizations based on only the registered email address domain, which should help you, if this you need to prove academic use for a granting agency etc:

There are 49 universities using the app:

mail.mcgill.ca, uwo.ca, uchicago.edu, ucalgary.ca, cornell.edu, uottawa.ca, yale.edu, uconn.edu, mcgill.ca, stonybrook.edu, berkeley.edu, mit.edu, syr.edu, fas.harvard.edu, linguist.umass.edu, udel.edu, ucla.edu, nyu.edu, miamioh.edu, email.arizona.edu, imail.iu.edu, shaw.ca, u.northwestern.edu, uiowa.edu, uta.edu, ling.osu.edu, mun.ca, students.pitzer.edu, mwcc.mass.edu, student.monash.edu, knox.edu, ucsc.edu, ucdavis.edu, bucknell.edu, umontreal.ca, alum.mit.edu, mail.mcgil.ca, uah.edu, mymail.pomona.edu, sfu.ca, austin.utexas.edu, bu.edu, humnet.ucla.edu, ubc.ca, utexas.edu, concordia.ca, albany.edu, alumni.ubc.ca, cmc.edu

And many more in the non-academic email address domains which we omitted for privacy reasons in case they are traceable to the person registered

gmail.com, hotmail.com, lingsync.org, yahoo.com, qq.com, me.com, msn.com, sil.org, yahoo.fr, discurs.us

its probably for the LSA intro

The only reason the OLD had affiliations or language of private corpora, is to prove that real academics are really using the app, and for that, we have the activity measures which prove this far better. I think the screenshots of the field method's corpus pages is very good demonstration of this, and that they could use those as visuals in their intro.