Blogosphere etiquette comes into question. “We seem to be at a critical juncture concerning the intersection of blogs and other Web 2.0 technologies with science,” writes associate editor Noah Gray at Action Potential, the Nature Neuroscience blog.
The anonymity of cyberspace provides protection to both share honest opinions and participate in mud-slinging without repercussion, he notes. Yet interaction on the Internet is more personal. “So why should some choose to check their manners at the door before logging on?” He argues that intolerant online communities unwilling to engage in a civil debate — whether on publication business models or the role of glutamate receptors in long-term potentiation of neurons — will turn off would-be contributors and stunt the growth of online scientific collaboration. Web-based collaborative technologies will not work for science if they become dominated by exclusive, aggressive types.
Gray isn’t calling for “communal singing of Kum Ba Yah during scientific debates”, but simply a certain level of restraint and professionalism online.
Nature 454, x; 24 July 2008
-
From the blogosphere by Maxine Clarke
An archive of the "From the Blogosphere" column on the Authors page in Nature, highlighting nature.com blog posts of interest to scientists in their role as authors and peer-reviewers. We welcome comments and suggestions.
-
Manners in the blogosphere -- 24 July 2008
- Date:
- Thursday, 24 Jul y 2008 - 08:26 UTC
Last updated: Thursday, 24 Jul 2008 - 08:26 UTC
-
Comments
-
hmm…
exclusive, aggressive types
I could say something cynical and state that this kind of people tend to do well in science ‘proper’ as well.
But I won’t, although I did.
Maxine, you do get some of the worst behaviour on the Nature pages aimed in your direction (or if not that, you feel the need to respond). I hope NPG provides you with ample supplies of camomile tea.
I think bloggers can do a lot to create an environment where good manners prevail. Henry’s favourite blog1 has a liberal approach to comments, and the posts themselves are often provocative. I think this makes it about the worst science blog for commenter behaviour, so I usually ignore the comment threads. There are plenty of other science blogs where good manners are maintained – Evolving Thoughts springs to mind, but there are plenty of others. A large part of it is that the blogger maintains an attitude of respect and rationality, so frothing at the mouth won’t get a lot of sympathy.
NN seems to work well in this regard too: I guess it’s because the regulars are all well mannered, so even when someone rants, they are usually apologetic about it, and have something interesting to say. I enjoy the atmosphere here because of that.
I also have a theory that the whimsy some of us propagate at NN helps the good behaviour by reducing the seriousness, but that might simply be self-justification.
1 you may note a smidgeon of sarcasm
My favourite blog is yours, Bob. Naturally.
Thanks for these comments! Noah’s entire post is very good, I was only able to highlight a couple of parts of his argument because of the contstraints of the print medium (from which these blog entries are copied). I commented at Corie’s post on this topic that, as someone on the receiving end of it over many years, it is much easier to absorb it if it happens via letters or email than if it is out there on the Internet. Mind you, some of the letters I do get would put some of these Internet Incediaries to shame.
To my mind, the most important aspect of this is that most scientists don’t use the social web, which is a pity. And when they look at some of the blogs and discussions that are out there, including Henry’s favourite but plenty of others, it is just going to put them off. I’m on the side of encouraging people that web 2.0 has many great uses for scientists. Vicious attacks (often by tens of previously converted people all chiming in zombie-like against one writer) aren’t going to help on that score.
I don’t disagree with Mark’s point that strong emotions are everywhere, but there is a presentational issue here. Conveying disappointing news (eg declining to publish a submitted paper), or stating a contrary point of view, can be done without resorting to rudeness and projection of your own “personal stuff” onto the person being disagreed with. And it can be done strongly and/or wittily, without being boring.
If the “social web” is going to become generally adopted as a useful part of science, it has got to drop some of its petulance. I can’t see anything that is gained by it — disagreements can be funny, but self-indulgent attacks aren’t. To most people, they make the writer of them look bad, and have a repelling effect.
Maybe we should start a collection of favourite blogs, as a “guide to the science blogosphere” for scientists unfamiliar to it? Or an icon, like that “peer review” icon? :-) (That is a joke).
I agree Nature Network is good at defusing some potential explosions by judicious use of humour, pictures of furry animals, etc. It makes me smile!
NN seems to work well in this regard too: I guess it’s because the regulars are all well mannered, so even when someone rants, they are usually apologetic about it, and have something interesting to say. I enjoy the atmosphere here because of that.
True. I already had one moment when I thought: this comment I just made was too harsh, although it wasn’t that harsh according to internet standards. But I was measuring my response to the average on NN. Which is very pleasant.
Mark, I didn’t think your initial comment was at all harsh! And I appreciate you making it.
More tea, anyone?
Mine’s a G&T, thanks.
@maxine
It wasn’t that one actually! Although I did consider not submitting that one. I actually have only a 50% submission rate going on here on NN. I write a lot more responses than I submit. And most posts are originally a lot longer.
Ice and a slice?
Thank you, you’re a gent. Any limes?
Sorry, they’re off. I do have some Bath Oliver biscuits somewhere.
Bath Oliver biscuits ????
Ah, I see.
Yes. They might be a bit soggy though. I can warm them up if you want.
Mark writes: I actually have only a 50% submission rate going on here on NN. I write a lot more responses than I submit.
I think that is an excellent practice, well, when writing something opinionated as opposed to stuff about tea & biccies with the Queen ;-). A lot of the time, just waiting for a bit, or reviewing first what you are going to impose on the entire world, is a good move.
Warm Bath Olivers, though – there’s a shocker.
Not so much warm, as dry.
@Maxine
And of course I still have the slim hope to have a Nature paper one day, so I must make sure that I am not funnier than Henry Gee.
Try me.
Would you like a Bath Oliver, Mark?
Yes please. Sir.
(I actually had to look up ‘Bath Oliver’, and was pleased to learn it made Mr Atkins rich)
Just don’t ask for any more, Mark!
Just help yourself. Don’t stint. More gin, Richard?
It’s just struck me that the title of this post would be an excellent title for a post-Imperial SF piece.
“Down at the club I heard rumours of a wise blogger, spoken of only in hushed tones, who was able to repel trolls armed only with one-liners and a photo of a golden retriever. As I had been troubled by gremlins recently, I decided I had to seek out this scribe, with only Manners to buttle for me.”
Henry, sign him up for a Futures, immediately!
I would, but it seems as if he can’t get the staff. Care for a sherry?
Thanks Henry, but the blasted sun seems to be below the yardarm again. Or above it. Depends on my angle I guess.
Maybe later.
I think if it’s below you’re all right.
Haven’t actually seen the sun in days. It’s been pissing down all week, here.
Makes me think wistfully of Manchester.
No, don’t bother with a glass. Just pass me the entire bottle. Cheers.
My birthplace, Richard.
Is anyone else worried that Richard is starting to turn into Major Bloodnok? I’m thinking we should check that the RI has good air conditioning, before we all meet there at the end of August.
Finished the bottle already, Dr Grant? Here, have another. The weather here in Cromer is El Scorchio.
One of my
rubber ducks is missingsources advised me earlier today that the RI is simply awash with in house “2.0” wi-fi gizmo’s.Live podcasting from the event? I’m certainly up for it.
Conf. organisers. Have you made contact with RI’s A/V person yet?
—
@ Dr Grant – very nice to speak with you yesterday.
@Maxine — I notice you did the decent thing and left.
@Bob — It’s hell out here
@Henry — most generous. Thanks.
@Graham — that was fun, thanks for inviting me. Intending to blog it at some point today. Nothing like timeliness, eh?
Good job I’m not using ‘strict’, all those undeclared arrays would get me in trouble. (Sorry, geek perl joke)
Nothing like timeliness, eh?
Fair point but one was asleep and sorry again for el latos invitaionos.
Extra Bath Oliver’s have been summoned !!
Hah, sorry Graham – it was a dig at myself, not you!
Blimey
heh, we’re famous.
Guns and Steel
What about us germs then?
What about us germs then?
Now that’s a real tough one. Have you tried this?
Well Henry, as you well know, Guns, Germs and Steel
went on to sell a gazillion records in another life and now play dominoes in a beach hut in Cromer every leap yearhypothetically broke up due to a previous comment from, er, none other than your good self before the party began:-If Richard is ‘Gun’ then does that mean I have to be ‘Germs’? I might leave the group, citing immunological differences.
Should you wish/choose to at least talk to the remaining members of GG&S face to face over
red hot coals/skewers/sports carsa light lunch in London next month, maybe, just maybe, we could talk some more. It’s so funny how…PS – 1/2 way through this shit (instant apols for using required ‘street language’) beat combo vid, I think I actually saw a member of the “Top of The Pops” audience actually tapping a finger. Amazing !!
What a song Sir Cliff.
PS – my lawyers have suggested ‘Guns, Gee & Steel’ by means of a compromise agreement.
Well spotted, Richard, I have left. Pity as the conversation is delightful, but I’m off on holiday. I’ll be back in a couple of weeks so please don’t let me stop you all from continuing in my absence….
@ Maxine – happy hols!
@ Richard – I know I left even before we began, but that was a clever strategy suggested by my agent who said that I could then rejoin in a blaze of publicity, announcing GGS as a (and I quote) ‘supergroup’.
Nimble apols Maxine for all of this
GGS drivelnonsense on this thread.I’ll speak to our manager first thing in the morning.
Wait? That’s none other then Richard P Grant. Oh bugger.