Wikipedia's Science 2.0 Article - I Call Poe


This article was inspired by Hontas Farmer's recent article and the subsequent comments: Science 2.0 - Darwinian Selection Of The Best Paper.




I call Poe because Wikipedia's article on Science 2.0 is so far removed from reality that I think it was intended for Uncyclopedia and somehow got mis-filed.



<!-- jumpto -->


You bet your britches the neutrality is disputed!



Science 2.0 or research 2.0 takes its cue from the technologies of web 2.0.

Research 2.0 is a term coined in 2006 by Ray Poynter to signify market research.  Science 2.0 and research 2.0 do not belong on the same page in the same Wikipedia article.  Chalk and cheese!


... sharing is at the heart of Science 2.0.










  • data: For instance, we can share experimental data, so that colleagues can verify our analysis or add their own. Or we can share attention metadata for recommendation algorithms: when we develop new such algorithms, we can compare them more easily if we have a reference set of observations – much like the Netflix challenge.










  • services: In an open research infrastructure, we can mash up common
    services for a specific purpose. We can configure feeds to remain informed of new publications or events that are relevant to us. Or professionals and amateurs alike can take pictures of the sky remotely through services for remote telescope operations.


















What's with the 'we' crap?  Does it imply 'we scientists' as opposed to 'you laypeople'?  That's not science 2.0, it's elitism 1.0 ! And elitism 2.0 !

I don't see Wikepedia articles on geomorphology which include phrases such as 'we geologists', so why allow it within the science 2.0 topic?  The more so since Wickedpedia won't allow Hank Campbell to say something like: "I invented science 2.0 and own the legal rights."

I wonder what would happen if Wikipedia wrote that "Coca-Cola, or lemonade, is a drink made of ingredients which vary according to where you buy it."  The law on legitimate satire doesn't apply to a site like Wikipedia which has a publicly stated policy about accuracy of content.


Michael Nielsen emphasizes that that (sic) researchers constantly run into new subproblems. Researchers often have a small group of trusted collaborators with whom they exchange questions and ideas when they are stuck. Unfortunately, most of the time even collaborators aren’t that much help. They may point the researcher in the right direction, but rarely do they have exactly the needed expertise. One of the goals of Science 2.0 is to scale up this conversational model, and build an online collaboration market to exchange questions and ideas, a sort of collective working memory for the scientific community.
Nearly, but not quite right.  The implicature is writ large in this paragraph: there is a 'scientific community' and then there is everyone else.


I don't want to bore my readers to death with this, so I'll cut to the chase.

You, my reader, whatever your formal qualifications or lack thereof, are a part of the science 2.0 global community of citizen scientists. 

You don't have to pay to read my wafflings erudite expositions.  You don't have to give three references and a blood-sample in order to comment.  Open access rules here at scientificblogging.com.

If I write a piece of unmitigated BS on any scientific topic then I am sure that you, dear reader, will be the first to jump on me from a great height.  Others will join you, not because of your reputation or credentials but from the joy of peer review - science 2.0 style.

Oh yes! Science can be fun!


There is a major difference between Wikipedia and scientificblogging.com - here, we don't hide controversies.  Even if I don't like a specific rational comment because I don't agree with it, or because it is rude - it stays.  If I kept only comments that agreed with me and deleted the rest, that would be intellectually dishonest - and I would almost certainly be banned from the site.

Wackypedia, by refusing to accept error corrections 'from the horse's mouth', is in danger of gaining a reputation for intellectual dishonesty.


I leave you with this not entirely unrelated thought:

“The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
G.K. Chesterton