Banner
    Should we have forums for people to discuss things?
    By Hank Campbell | March 17th 2007 01:04 PM | 17 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Well, we'll see. You can disable this if you feel it clutters up your sidebar by going to My Account and unchecking the box for Forums.

    Comments

    bachan1
    hiiiiiiiiii
            dear friend's i read your comment's and post's they are nice and effective but i want to know more about something if you tell me some more imfo. or data about this it's very nice to me and thank's a lot dear.............
     
                      When a new football stadium is being built on a site of environmental
    and historical, Alistair ties himself to a tree to stop it, much to
    Sam's disgust. Despite threats by the football team to build the
    stadium even if he does not move, Alistair stays at his post, and does
    so until it stars to rain.
    ====================
    sam
    ====================


    Virginia Drug Treatment Centers
    RobertW
    Yes, forums should be available for group interaction on particular subjects and ideas. I find that I learn more from engaging in conversation. Robert W a-singularity.blogspot.com/
    Robert W a-singularity.blogspot.com/
    Hank
    That's my thinking. Most the the writing we do is for public consumption but this is just a way to make suggestions about the site or talk amongst ourselves when we want to do more than person-person chat or email.

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Georg von Hippel
    Anonymous accounts are definitely a very bad idea. There is enough anonymous trolling going on on the internet. And while it is certainly true that a pseudonym can have just as much of a reputation as a real name, pseudonymous online authors tend to do shallower research before writing, as well as to be much nastier in how they handle criticism, than authors using their real name, probably because a pseudonym is ultimately always discardable (unless it has already become really, really famous), but your real name will stick to you until you die (or marry, or join a monastery, or are elected pope -- but in the first two cases most academics retain their birth name for professional purposes precisely because of its reputation, and the last case is rather rare among scientists).
    I guess what I really want to say is, what I value on the site is just the fact that I get feedback on my creative writing from a community of people. I don't really care who the people are perse, but the actual content that I get back from the community as a whole is what I care about. I just like knowing that there is a community out there, but the actual names of the people don't really matter to me. Just knowing that they are people with similiar intersts to me is enough.  And I guess for someone like me who just wants to use this as a chance to see how people respond to my creative writings, I would feel myself more comfortable in an environment that didn't necessitate me giving out my real name. I feel l would be much more susceptible to judgment and persecution, than I would otherwise not having to give out my name.

    Hank
    The microscope is a little tighter on everyone during a private beta than it would be when we have a public and then go live. Just keeping writing good stuff. A little self-promotion isn't a bad idea either. The more people you bring to the site who are interested in you, the bigger your fan base grows as we go into the live phase.

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    I think forums are a good idea, generally speaking. A few good heads are always better than just one.

    John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

    Will we be allowed to re-post any articles we wrote during the beta after we go live?

    I would hate any of this to get lost, so to speak.

    John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

    Ok, fair enough.  But what if people want to use anonymity, because say they become sucessful and they would rather not have people know who they are.  This  is not a question of being embarassed, it is a question of choosing whether or not you want to be recognized as somewhat of a celebrity.  People may amass a large following in the course of their writings, and some people may wish to then hide their idenity for whatever reasons related to this. 

    Hank
    It is unlikely a celebrity scientist is going to write anonymously - they sell books based on their name and their publicity just like anyone else. It is equally unlikely some "deep throat" scientist whose job will be at risk is going to come here to divulge his expose. He will instead do what anyone would do - set up a secret account on Blogger and let the internet spread the word.

    I am betting 99.999% of the time people who need anonymity on a science site do it because they want to cause trouble without recourse. The delta between that and 100 is the likelihood they are writing so well or on topics so important that we will allow it.

    The fact that we let non-featured writers have accounts and use the traffic from featured writers to bring an audience to everyone is far ahead of every other top science site. No one else does it at all. Anonymous accounts would open up problems and not add to the quality of the community.

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    I think that is very cool of you guys to do.  You are providing a great service, and in my opinion you are taking science foward. 

    Hank
    Your point is philosophical. I still haven't seen a valid reason to allow anonymous authors.

    Again, our point in creating this was not to have the confused mess of Blogger or other open sites and have a place where featured scientists and science writers of many experience levels can interact. The credibility of the site is what will draw the audience, not the openness for people who think anonymity for them is more important than our community.

    No other science site uses anonymous writers because the quality of the authors plummets if they do. If writers want to be anonymous, they can use Blogger.

    I would rather have 200 scientists who aren't embarrassed by what they write than 2000 writers who need to use anonymity as a shield because they are concerned what they wrote will embarrass them later. We would lose the good writers and serious people if we allowed it and we won't allow that.

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    I agree completely Hank. If you don't have the strength of your convictions you should be somewhere else.

    Let's do good writing, and be open to constructive criticism, or praise, as the case may be.

    John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

    You see, I think this is going to be the biggest question we face in the next decade or so.   How are you to even know what my real name is?  How do you know that I didn't just make up the real sounding name of "Albert F..."?  I can still have pride in my work, without using my real name.  I can't give you any data to back this up, but in general, I think for young people, whether or not I know someone's real name is becoming irelevant, especially as more and more of our lives are being pulled online.  The name of somebody simply does not matter.  If you use a real name, then you might be trying to "upload" your real life repuation onto the web, and that is fine.  But if you use an alias, presumably there would be nothing to upload, but after a while the alias itself would develope its own reputation anyway.  It does not matter what your name is, as long as the content is good.  I think this is the paradigm shift that goes along with the transition between a society dominated by its media, to a sociiety controlling its media.   Sooner or later, however,  the law WILL get involved, because eventually money will be involved, which needs to be taxed somehow, and it wont be a philosophical question, but a legal question.  How do we tax people who don't use their real names but are making money anyway.  But think about it this way...  What kind of world would it be where we forced people to use their real names...Out the window of history flys the great authors, like Mark Twain, George Orville, and the rest.  Also what do you mean by Good Science?  Not everything people write here is really all that scientific.  I am not saying that people don't generally write about themes that revolve around science, but do you see people publishing the results of their studies here?  Maybe then I could see the need for requiring peoples real names, if eventually this site offered free peer review and hosting, but for the rest of the authors who aren't submitting offical-type publications, then why in the world would a real name ever be necessary?  To preserve civil discourse?  I don't agree with that.  Besides you have the power to ban people from the site, if they are trolling or whatnot.  And that power has nothing to whether or not people use their real names when they sign up.  You have that power at all times.    

    Hank
    The best way to keep discourse civil and honest is for people to use real names. My name is real. Yours is real. On the 'blocked' list right now are 40 accounts that have used fake names to try and register.

    I know you are just speaking out for openness and not advocating trolls being allowed to hide behind anonymity. If people want to write things that are not part of the public record they probably aren't writing about science so they can do it on NowPublic or Blogger or other general sites. There aren't any other science sites ( that I know of ) that allow anonymous writer accounts because people writing there have pride in their work.

    We're going to let anyone write about science that wants to write about it but we're going to delete accounts that use false names. Good science is transparent and so are good science writers. Obviously readers can always comment anonymously or make up names.

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Ok, what I mean is this:  Right now I am just trying this stuff out.  I made a very conscious descion when I decide to use my real name, but now I want to to use just an alias.  That is what i mean by change my identity.  This is a big issue for me.  I wasn't sure that using my real name was the best thing to do, and I am still not convinced.  So now I want to try using an alias, or pen name if you will.  I think it is important that this option be available not only to me, but to everyone else who has similar concerns about using their real names. 

    Hank
    From Albert:

    I think it would be cool if we could all have some sort of way to correct people's punctuation errors we see. At least have an option you can click like, "Let others fix your grammatical and wording erros? Check this box!" That way people can just choose for themselves if they want others correcting their stuff, which basically means having giving them editing power over your article.

    I'd also like the power to change my identity. I've tried to put in a different name, but its not registering.

    Doing this for spelling errors is easy ( you would think ) and we did it for a while during testing but getting it to work with anything other than IE was quite difficult. It messed up all of the other browsers and generally was a lot of work.

    This is the forum to use for internal stuff, rather than making new articles.

    I am not sure what you mean by 'change my identity'?

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind