May 04 2008
A comment on the nature of blogging
A friend sent me an article on environmental blogging and the responsibility that scientists have to engage in so-called “new media” to present their findings or thoughts. I think the gist of the article was also that readers of blogs that present scientific information should be at least as critical as they are of the conventional print media (click here to read the article, entitled “Environmental Science Adrift in the Blogosphere).
I am referring to this article partly because I think its a good summary of some of the standard anti-blog arguments. But its also a call for scientists to blog about what they are doing, and to engage in peer-review of science-related material contained within the “DIY publishing” world of the internet.
I’m also posting it as the starting point for a response to Sauwah’s contribution to this blog on the 25th of April post.
“hell, it’s my opinion; yet i do know others who are in the same line of business as packer do disagree with him. no one can demand me to explain myself. it’s a blog. and i do live in a free world. and since i am a no body, i can state my opinion period.”I’m putting my response to Sauwah’s comment within a post because I think he / she has raised some very important points. As follows my reactions:
- Expressing one’s opinion is welcome here. I choose to allow comments that represent radically different viewpoints from mine, because I think its important to stimulate discussion about how best to achieve conservation.
- There are a great many conservation scientists that disagree with Packer’s findings. On the whole though there is a consensus that his science is good. This is the nature of peer-review. For better or for worse, I subscribe to the peer-review format.
- The internet is a great arena for people to express themselves, this is true. I particularly like the fact that people of all ages, levels of experience and nationalities are able to participate in discussion on this blog. However, I reserve the right to ask contributors to express themselves clearly. I like it when people make strong ideological statements. I appreciate concerned readers expressing their feelings. However, I will moderate any discussion that involves science-based conservation, and may ask for further clarification. This blog is partly here to raise awareness, and to bring people to understand what large carnivore conservation is about. Jy kan nie so ‘n klip in die bos gooi meneer. Nie in hierdie plek nie
The author of the article I linked to above has some very interesting things to say about science and the media in general. I saw an excellent presentation by him a year ago, in which he described how badly science is represented in the media generally. Well worth looking up some of his work if you are interested in the Shiva-like internet world of news reporting (thanks DP for the metaphor).
One response so far
Seamus, we enjoy hearing other points of view. How else do we grow. May not always agree with them, but they are welcome. To be quite frank, the discussion here somtimes is a little out of my grasp of comprehension. Sure that is no lost on some. But thats ok, it pushes me to explore. I’m not much on semantics, either. Vision may be a lofty expression of your work. Perhaps you prefer action plan or mission statement, either is fine with me. Pushing the envelope, please let us know what equipment is needed, to pursue your studies. Camera traps, GPS, collaring lions…