Scientific Researchers and Web 2.0: Social Not Working? forum: topic
This is a public forum
Follow-up to "Researchers and web2.0" event, please provide feedback here
Maxine Clarke
Thursday, 25 September 2008 10:17 UTC
Those who attended the “Scientific Researchers and Web 2.0” evening at the British Library (24 Sept 2008) may have some follow-up points and may wish to continue the discussion on some of the topics covered. Please make any comments or provide feedback as a “reply” to this post. Alternatively, any Nature Network user in this group can create their own post in this forum, so please do so if there is a particular point you want to raise that you would like to see discussed in its own thread.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Hi all
Thanks to the organisers for a v. stimulating event. Finally found a moment to blog a few of my notes, in the form of an issue map, which illustrates one of our approaches to structured, scientific discourse that’s web-native
cheers
Simon
-
Actually this kind of trickle down of information, while beset with issues (for example, whose opinion gets filtered down, when science is all about critiquing and uncertainty — the selfsame aspect various pseuds exploit to promote nonsense) and completely dependent on there being an actual use for it right at the bottom end (i.e., a Sun column or an ITV news item, Fox even…).
As for the educated layperson in the trenches, I remember a while ago participating in an ‘ask the (self-declared) expert’ site run for students primarily by some firm or non-profit and supplied with answers by teachers and uni types. This could be the kind of exchange that you need? To try to stick to the theme a bit a site that did some sort of pushy news feedy thing to alert the duty brains that a question has been posted for a rapid response might ensure that the reply comes in a timely manner?
I think (along with everyone else probably) that better communication of science, and some allowance for uncertainty and conflict without some mass media bottom feeder polarising things to make for better copy, would make for a better world. Consider the use of gamma radiation to sterilise food — absolutely marvellous idea that has been killed (at least publicly, it is used a bit anyway) in the public’s mind because of that noun (RAY-DEE-AY-SHUN = WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE although of late it is perhaps more likely to be associated with brains and phones — still connoting death and misery though).
Ultimately, mass media presentations of science should really be subject to expert review. Proper fact checking. How’s that for a ridiculous notion. Web 2.0ish stuff could make for a fairly efficient ‘distributed rebuttal unit’ and Web 38.0 will allow AIs to use ontologies to fact check for us.
Though if many scientists’ inputs are as subtle as Big Ricky D’s, we may be no better off. (Quote: “THERE’S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE”) http://tinyurl.com/6fwzv7
“Probably” lol. Winning 0 – Precision 1
Results
-
