Group items tagged

In principle, Surridge says, scientists should find a transition to Web 2.0 perfectly natural. After all, since the time of Galileo and Newton, scientists have built up their knowledge about the world by “crowdsourcing” the contributions of many researchers and then refining that knowledge through open debate. “Web 2.0 fits so perfectly with the way science works. It’s not whether the transition will happen but how fast,” Surridge says.

Although wikis are gaining, scientists have been strikingly slow to embrace one of the most popular Web 2.0 applications: Web logging, or blogging. “It’s so antithetical to the way scientists are trained,” Duke University geneticist Huntington F. Willard said at the January 2007 North Carolina Science Blogging Conference, one of the first big gatherings devoted to this topic. The whole point of blogging is getting ideas out there quickly, even at the risk of being wrong or incomplete. “But to a scientist, that’s a tough jump to make,” Willard says. “When we publish things, by and large, we’ve gone through a very long process of drafting a paper and getting it peer-reviewed. Every word is carefully chosen, because it’s going to stay there for all time. No one wants to read, ‘Contrary to the result of Willard and his colleagues....’” Nevertheless, Willard favors blogging. As a frequent author of newspaper op-ed pieces, he feels that scientists should make their voices heard in every responsible way. Because most blogs allow outsiders to comment on the individual posts, they have proved to be a good medium for brainstorming and discussions.

“The peer-reviewed paper is the cornerstone of jobs and promotion,” PLoS ONE’s Surridge says. “Scientists don’t blog because they get no credit” for that.

Some universities may be coming around, too. In a landmark vote in February, the faculty at Harvard’s College of Arts and Sciences approved a system in which the college would post finished papers in an online repository, available free to all. Authors would still hold copyright and could still publish the papers in traditional journals.

MIT's policy is the first faculty-driven, university-wide initiative of its kind in the United States.

In the current scholarly publishing system, individual authors are required to transfer all or most of their rights to the publisher. Typically publishers will strictly limit access to the work through licensing

"In the quest for higher profits, publishers have lost sight of the values of the academy. This will allow authors to advance research and education by making their research available to the world."

"Scholarly publishing has so far been based purely on contracts between publishers and individual faculty authors," said Hal Abelson

"In that system, faculty members and their institutions are powerless. This resolution changes that by creating a role in the publishing process for the faculty as a whole, not just as isolated individuals."

hat Donner ein fest etabliertes Regelwerk ausgemacht, das er "The Rules of Beeping" nennt. Das erste Gebot lautet dabei, dass "der Reichere zahlt", einen Ärmeren zu "beepen" ist dagegen verpönt. Das gleiche gilt für das "Beepen" der Freundin oder wenn man jemanden um einen Gefallen bitten will. Außerdem sollte man nie mehr als zweimal hintereinander um Rückruf anklingeln.

Morsen mittels Klingelton.

4. New method: (Twitter, April 4th, 2009) Slow blogging at PressThink, daily mindcasting at Twitter, work room at FriendFeed. Example: post in gestation.

live web