Personal tools
You are here: Home Chat Discussion about the influence of Web 2.0 technologies on science and scientific communication
Document Actions

Discussion about the influence of Web 2.0 technologies on science and scientific communication

This is the recording of the open IRC discussion about the influence of Web 2.0 technologies on science and scientific communication. It took place at the second day of the symposium (Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 16:00 CET).

The participants were

  • Euan Adie (stewtoo)
  • Pedro Beltrao (pedrobeltrao)
  • Phillip Gebhard (argonaut, lysin)
  • Michal Karzynsky (karzynsk)
  • Roland Krause (rolandkrause)
  • Michael Kuhn (michael_kuhn)
  • Greg Tyrelle (greg_tyrelle)
  • chaired by Konrad Förstner (konrad_foerstner)


16:02 <@konrad_foerstner> I would like to welcome all logged in participants and will shortly introduce the topic. Today scientific communication is done mainly by publishing in journals of professional publishing companies. In the last years a (small) fraction of scientist started to use newer web technologies like blogs as an additional channel. Let's try to have look at the future with the first questions: Do you think blogs will not only complement but substitute the classical way of publishing in the next years?

(Here a small technical problem occurred. This part is removed)

16:08 < argonaut> I don't think that the big publisher's journals will be replaced by blogs in the near future.
16:08 < greg_tyrelle> no, definitely not substitute, compliment yes
16:08 < michael_kuhn> I guess it would be desirable if everybody would publish their most recent results on a blog, but it doesn't really fit in the traditional model of assigning credit by authorship on publications.
16:09 <@konrad_foerstner> So do we need control mechanism?
16:09 <@konrad_foerstner> Or would a hybrid system make sense?
16:09 < greg_tyrelle> blogs are just the wrong format/medium for science, musings about science but not publication of results
16:09 < michael_kuhn> Yes, an automagic assignment of cookie points for each bit of research that you publish :)
16:10 < greg_tyrelle> what do you mean by control mechanims ?
16:10 <@konrad_foerstner> That's another issue. The proplem that people don't get any credit for publishing via this channel.
16:10 < greg_tyrelle> peer review of blog posts ?
16:10 <@konrad_foerstner> Could be an approach.
16:11 < argonaut> from my perspective: most group leaders of bioscientific labs are kind of paranoid about being scooped. This kind of publishing won't overcome their fears. Everybody wants to be the first to discover something. Sorry, that's how humans are made. Unless we have a big change in paradigms.
16:11 < rolandkrause> if you talk about peer review, you are no longer talking about blogging, eh?
16:11 < michael_kuhn> I guess nodal point is implementing a version of peer review for posts
16:11 < michael_kuhn> or rather, editorial review
16:12 <@konrad_foerstner> true
16:12 < greg_tyrelle> rolandkrause: yes :)
16:12 < karzynsk> but before we discuss how to use blogs, maybe we should ask why a scientist would want to do it in the first place?
16:12 <@konrad_foerstner> Do what exactly?
16:12 < karzynsk> what is the advantage for a scientist for publishing anything on a blog...
16:13 < stewtoo> Control...
16:13 < greg_tyrelle> karzynsk: yes, good point
16:13 < rolandkrause> what is the advantage to publish in the first place?
16:13 < greg_tyrelle> credit
16:13 < rolandkrause> see
16:13 <@konrad_foerstner> Exactly
16:13 < argonaut> you could publish your results when you have them. this would kind of accelerate the gain of knowledge
16:13 <@konrad_foerstner> But you don't get credits.
16:13 < karzynsk> well, established papers give you credit, which is recognized by "authority"... a blog has no such credibility.
16:14 < greg_tyrelle> it is a certain kind of credit though
16:14 < rolandkrause> ask technorati
16:14 <@konrad_foerstner> That's right. But can we change this paradigm?
16:14 < greg_tyrelle> credit that other scientists recognise
16:14 < argonaut> sorry, what is technorati
16:14 < michael_kuhn> Roland, could you perhaps share some of your motivations for your blog,  "notes from the biomass"?
16:14 <@konrad_foerstner> argonaut: a blog search website
16:14 < rolandkrause> Technorati ah blog search/analysis platform that aims to show relevance
16:15 < rolandkrause> and 'authority' www.technorati.com
16:15 < argonaut> thank you
16:15 <@konrad_foerstner> exatly: what is your motivation to blog?
16:15 < greg_tyrelle> argonaut: www.postgenomic.com ? similar but science focused
16:15 < rolandkrause> bad time - 15 min break here, I'll be back
16:16 < karzynsk> according to technorati, this hour the most important topics include: Britney Spears and shopping
16:16 < greg_tyrelle> I'll offer some thoughts then, by way of introduction I run nodalpoint.org
16:16 < greg_tyrelle> I've been doing that for more than six years
16:16 < greg_tyrelle> the reason for doing it pure ands simple is curiosity
16:17 < greg_tyrelle> explore the medium, generate conversation etc.
16:17 <@konrad_foerstner> Do you think you also gain regarding reputation?
16:17 < greg_tyrelle> around bioinformatics, research, biology, publish, the web
16:17 < greg_tyrelle> yes and no
16:18 <@konrad_foerstner> can you please explain that?
16:18 < greg_tyrelle> how shall I put this, alpha geeks/scientists recognise it as a contribution
16:18 < michael_kuhn> I guess Greg is less visible at nodalpoint than Roland at his blog, b/c he's the editor, but not the sole author
16:18 < greg_tyrelle> but the vast majority of people in science have no idea about how the web is effecting their domain
16:19 < greg_tyrelle> michael_kuhn: yes, that is true
16:20 < argonaut> but this might be limited to the blog community. not many bench scientists are aware of these interaction possibilities and therefore they are not using it regularly.
16:20 <@konrad_foerstner> So do you think this is only a generation problem?
16:20 < argonaut> it is also a time problem
16:20 < michael_kuhn> As a blogging scientist, you probably do gain credit among your peers (alpha geeks), but perhaps not among people on hiring committees, at least not yet
16:20 < greg_tyrelle> konrad_foerstner: most definitely yes
16:20 -!- pedrobeltrao [***] has joined #embl_online_phd_symposium
16:20 < karzynsk> i like the point Greg made about "generating conversation" - that's a clear advantage of blogging: instant feedback
16:21 < greg_tyrelle> hey pedro, glad you could make it
16:21 < pedrobeltrao> hi all :)
16:21 <@konrad_foerstner> hi, pedro I mailed you the last part of the conversation
16:22 < greg_tyrelle> this might be a good time to point to Rosie Redfield's lab
16:22 < greg_tyrelle> http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~redfield/doing.html
16:22 < greg_tyrelle> she has all of her post docs and students writing up their daily progress in blogs
16:23 <@konrad_foerstner> that's a promising approach
16:23 < greg_tyrelle> there is certainly the potential there to generate conversation
16:23 <@konrad_foerstner> should there be training in web publishing for all scientist?
16:23 < lysin> greg: very interesting. didn't know that somebody is regularly using that to transport their results
16:23 < greg_tyrelle> getting back to the time/generational change I can't emphasise that enough
16:24 < michael_kuhn> I guess if every postdoc and student would suddenly start a blog, it'd be quite a chaos, but somehow people working on the same things could find each other and have a conversation
16:24 < pedrobeltrao> I agree there that it will take a generational change. current PIs are not aware of the tools
16:24 < greg_tyrelle> as being the real problem, blogs and web publishing are a no-brainer for science, of course everyone will use them in a few years, it just makes too much sense,  I just don't hink they'll use them as personal publishing platforms, more communication
16:25 < stewtoo> Blogging as a source of scientific content is cool but I think it's the easy part - we're kind of skipping over the more important bits of a journal: the editorial viewpoint (what do the readers want to see?) and the peer review...
16:25 < greg_tyrelle> pedrobeltrao: yes, tools are another part of the puzzle
16:25 < lysin> that is the "credibility" part of this medium
16:26 < greg_tyrelle> nothing much that is specific to science blogging, upload a gel and annotate etc.
16:26 <@konrad_foerstner> lysin: the equivalent to impart factor, right?
16:27 < greg_tyrelle> maybe linkedin style community networks a la 'nature boston network', www.scilink.com may solve the crediblity issue
16:27 < michael_kuhn> I don't think that, if everybody blogs, it would be the equivalent of publishing in a journal. There still will be a need for stand-along publications, whereas blogs will be the chatter that lead up to the article
16:27 < lysin> yes, you would have to form a kind of system as it already exists for peer-reviewed journals. some blogs would be more reliable than others. but only if you would publish all your stuff only via blogs
16:28 <@konrad_foerstner> How about the Wiki-Science Kevin Kelly metioned (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly06/kelly06_index.html)
16:28 < pedrobeltrao> but it would be possible to have blog conversations turning into wiki drafts frozen for publication
16:28 < lysin> michael: nice idea
16:28 < greg_tyrelle> pedrobeltrao: virtual collaborative science
16:28 < lysin> too much disorder ;)
16:28 < michael_kuhn> I guess wiki science is more for huge projects, whereas blogs would also be meaningful for smaller projects to get outside input
16:29 < michael_kuhn> ... do people who comment become co-authors? get acknowledged?
16:29 <@konrad_foerstner> This issues have to be solved right.
16:29 <@konrad_foerstner> But this is a classical view
16:30 < argonaut> michael: do reviewers of journals do become co-authors?
16:30 <@konrad_foerstner> what is the problem if there are 1000 authors?
16:30 < michael_kuhn> argonaut: no, but you acknowledge them. good analogy.
16:30 <@konrad_foerstner> argonaut: good idea actutally
16:30 <@konrad_foerstner> Sometimes reviewers have good input for a paper
16:31 < pedrobeltrao> if authors contributions are explicit and there is a nice history of the events it will be better than a list of names we currently have
16:31 < argonaut> but you don't even know them - in the normal case. so how would you acknowledge them
16:31 < michael_kuhn> I guess, commenters on the blog would be earlier in the process, while you're still doing experiments.
16:32 < stewtoo> I second Pedro. Plus people who only suggest things to you shouldn't be authors on any papers that comes out of the work nowadays. :)
16:32 < michael_kuhn> I've seen many articles saying something like "We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable input."
16:32 <@konrad_foerstner> In Kevin Kelly proposal there is no finished paper.
16:32 < argonaut> but in reality they think why the reviewer made him/her doing so many additional experiments ;)
16:33 < argonaut> this would completely change the organisation of current science (people working in small labs)
16:34 < argonaut> if everybody is taking part in a single project
16:34 <@konrad_foerstner> Well, it would include more inter-lab-communication
16:35 < argonaut> the quality of the published data will go down
16:35 <@konrad_foerstner> why do you think so?
16:35 < greg_tyrelle> kk's ideas on wiki science are interesting, but someone needs to formulate the idea/topic and the organise everyone around it, there needs to be a 'virtual PI'
16:35 < argonaut> that's what I personally think
16:36 < pedrobeltrao> i think "quality" will go down no matter what , due to the increase of number of jiurnals and the pressure to publish.
16:36 <@konrad_foerstner> I agree with greg. It should be that anybody just can participate
16:36 <@konrad_foerstner> sorry, shouldn't
16:37 < argonaut> greg: there must be a virtual supervisor who coordinates the project
16:37 <@konrad_foerstner> So how can we get there? Should there be training in web publishing?
16:37 < greg_tyrelle> re: training in web publishing, yes
16:37 <@konrad_foerstner> does anybody know if this is done somewhere already?
16:38 < greg_tyrelle> argonaut: yes, someone must be a benevolent dictator
16:38 < greg_tyrelle> which is how they describe leaders of open source projects
16:38 < argonaut> that's not what I meant
16:38 < pedrobeltrao> what about a virtual research institure ? :) nodalpoint could actually apply for a grant by now
16:38 <@konrad_foerstner> you, mean in the wiki article, not the teaching
16:39 < greg_tyrelle> argonaut: what did you mean ?
16:39 < greg_tyrelle> pedrobeltrao: I've come across a few virtual universities on line, or open universities
16:40 <@konrad_foerstner> yes, e-learning will increase in the future
16:40 <@konrad_foerstner> but does anybody know a university where scientist are trained in web publishing?
16:40 < greg_tyrelle> back to konrad's question, I am unaware of any initatives to teach web publishing in Taiwan
16:41 < michael_kuhn> okay, but there needs to be an incentive for normal scientists to learn about blogging, and start a blog
16:41 < pedrobeltrao> konrad: i dont know any as well
16:41 < greg_tyrelle> to scientists, I should add
16:41 -!- Laketa [***] has joined #embl_online_phd_symposium
16:42 < greg_tyrelle> I have promoted connotea, blogs, rss, wikis at the labs I've worked in
16:42 < rolandkrause> there is an incentive - publicity outside traditional publishing scheme
16:42 < pedrobeltrao> kuhn: there are incentives. you gain visibility and the hability to drive attention
16:42 < greg_tyrelle> ahh, ego
16:42 < greg_tyrelle> yes, appeal to ego, that will work
16:42 < pedrobeltrao> :) hehe
16:42 <@konrad_foerstner> :)
16:42 <@konrad_foerstner> works always
16:43 <@konrad_foerstner> so the "revolutions" comes from the roots
16:43 < rolandkrause> Not only ego - the knowledge that there are people out there that share a similar mindset is important too
16:43 <@konrad_foerstner> the guys who are deciding about the teaching schedule don't think about web publishing.
16:43 < greg_tyrelle> community
16:44 < michael_kuhn> people are still going to be afraid of getting scooped (http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=794) and you could argue that blogging about your results increases your chances of getting scooped (but giving clues to your evil, non-blogging competitors.
16:44 <@konrad_foerstner> yes, but this is again the question of the credit system
16:45 <@konrad_foerstner> if a blog entry would be an accepted way of publishing
16:45 < pedrobeltrao> on the other hand you can get feedback. i did it once and got some feedback. mostly by roland there :)
16:45 < greg_tyrelle> it is a public record
16:45 <@konrad_foerstner> nobody would be scooped if the result are later found in the paper of somebody else
16:45 < rolandkrause> the problem is that you have to show things reliably
16:45 < rolandkrause> you can write 15000 things on your blog
16:45 <@konrad_foerstner> pedrobeltrao: seems like the community is not too big
16:47 < rolandkrause> so, if I say that protein is involved in disease A, B, C, and D (and the rest of OMIM), so I need to be cited when someone confirms it?
16:47 <@konrad_foerstner> if I write a paper people also (don't) trust me
16:47 < greg_tyrelle> yes, it works both ways
16:48 <@konrad_foerstner> so the classical publishing world an the blog are mashable
16:48 <@konrad_foerstner> only in one direction
16:48 <@konrad_foerstner> I guess you will not find a paper citing a blog
16:48 <@konrad_foerstner> (exeptions are the Nature articles about the blogging in science)
16:48 < pedrobeltrao> actually yes .. i saw it once
16:48 < rolandkrause> due to instablility of the Web per se
16:49 < rolandkrause> you should not reference URLs in the first place
16:49 <@konrad_foerstner> I am not sure about this stability thing
16:49 < michael_kuhn> well, there are doi and permanent URLs
16:49 < pedrobeltrao> .. can"t get the link. but it was an obscure journal
16:49 <@konrad_foerstner> if a very small publishing group dies
16:50 <@konrad_foerstner> you can lose also nearly everthing they published
16:50 < greg_tyrelle> urls are only as stable as you make them
16:50 < rolandkrause> well, that represents an asset which will be bought
16:50 < greg_tyrelle> permanent rather
16:50 <@konrad_foerstner> in the web you have archive.org
16:50 < stewtoo> There's http://www.webcitation.org/
16:50 < stewtoo> Though it's not really designed for blog posts (I think)
16:52 < stewtoo> I like the idea of giving blog posts DOIs, apart from anything else it might help them be taken seriously by people who don't blog
16:52 < pedrobeltrao> http://www.biologicalprocedures.com/bpo/arts/1/109/m109.htm  citation number 16
16:52 < stewtoo> There's a cost associated with that, though. Maybe that's a good thing too - you only apply for a DOI for posts that you care about.
16:52 <@konrad_foerstner> kind of a filter, true
16:53 < michael_kuhn> well, if it's not free, you'll probably not assign a DOI just in case somone deicdes to cite you
16:54 < greg_tyrelle> stewtoo: don't know if the doi people would be keen on that idea
16:54 <@konrad_foerstner> pedrobeltrao: cool!
16:55 < greg_tyrelle> the idea that URI's are not stable is not true, stability is social
16:56 <@konrad_foerstner> so it is not only unidirectional
16:56 < greg_tyrelle> http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
16:56 < greg_tyrelle> it is up to the journal to accept web citations
16:57 < michael_kuhn> do journals care? for some web servers it's standard to cite the URL
16:57 < greg_tyrelle> question: what is the best way for blogs to gain more credibility in the eyes of teh scientific community ? citations in journals ?
16:58 <@konrad_foerstner> actually citation in journals would definetly help
16:58 < pedrobeltrao> plosone and some of the nature titles (protocols for ex) are will probablly accept "publications" that come close to what are now very good blog post. so maybe
istead of reqesting a DOI maybe just re-submit a good blog post to one of these
16:58 < rolandkrause> michael_kuhn: Journals do care (and should) - for web servers, there is no other way but one preferss to cite the NAR issue rather than the URL
16:58 < stewtoo> greg: Mmm, and more prominent scientists blogging
16:59 < greg_tyrelle> trust networks
16:59 <@konrad_foerstner> maybe there should be a centralized (?) service for archiving scientific blogs
16:59 < rolandkrause> pedrobeltrao: Good point, and a much better way, isn;t it?
17:01 < michael_kuhn> I'm wondering about the size of audience. Bloglines says that there 12 subscribers to Roland's blog, and 88 to nodalpoint, although these numbers might be way off. I think a hurdle towards blogging is the probable absence of an audience
17:02 < rolandkrause> it's not - every post is read by ~ 50 people I would think
17:02 < pedrobeltrao> greg: any idea on the number for nodalpoint ?
17:02 < rolandkrause> (at nftb.net)
17:02 < rolandkrause> most of the specialists in the field
17:03 < michael_kuhn> (Bloglines shows you the number of people who subscribe via Bloglines only)
17:03 <@konrad_foerstner> yes, I think Bloglines is not a good way to measures this.
17:03 < greg_tyrelle> difficult to tell, the audience of registered users is small, most people read via rss, the feed is by far the most requested page
17:04 < rolandkrause> konrad_foerstner: I don't agree - there is NO single way to get a feeling for the audience (talk to the ad industry)
17:04 < pedrobeltrao> I would not be suprised if Nodalpoint has more readers than some of the BMC titles
17:04 < michael_kuhn> :)
17:04 < rolandkrause> but bloglines gives you a good idea on roughly how many people read you via a feed reade
17:04 < greg_tyrelle> I haven't check the stats recently
17:04 < stewtoo> Yeah... has anybody published in BMC and then looked at the readership stats? :)
17:05 < stewtoo> Comparing that to a more 'famous' site like Pharyngula (OK, it's more politics than science...) - closer to 1,000+ reads per post?
17:06 < rolandkrause> how does it compare to Nascent?
17:07 <@konrad_foerstner> about measuring: http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s20pedrobeltrao
17:07 <@konrad_foerstner> this is pedros sitemeter
17:07 <@konrad_foerstner> that's at some it would kind of trust
17:08 < pedrobeltrao> :) yeah i get around 10 to 20 visits per day depending on posting frequency
17:08 < michael_kuhn> well, but there you probably don't see people who read it (or not) via RSS
17:08 < greg_tyrelle> yes, RSS is the way most people read
17:08 <@konrad_foerstner> true
17:09 < pedrobeltrao> but anyway... what about new tools ? or how to make them dead easy to use ?
17:09 <@konrad_foerstner> aren't they? ;)
17:10 < greg_tyrelle> what do you think of blogger ?
17:10 < pedrobeltrao> blogging is easy, tagging is easy. but establishing collaborations , asking for help in a visible way is not.
17:10 < greg_tyrelle> what do you mean by collaborations ?
17:10 < greg_tyrelle> or asking for help ?
17:10 < greg_tyrelle> with a scientfic problem ?
17:11 < greg_tyrelle> via the blog ?
17:11 <@konrad_foerstner> well, first you need an audience. to get people interested in it the first step.
17:11 < pedrobeltrao> well .. imagine i write a blog entry requesting help. it could be picked up by an agregator and sent to a list of related people for ex
17:11 < greg_tyrelle> I see
17:12 < pedrobeltrao> yeah, but that part, getting an audience takes a lot of time and sometimes you want to ask a question to another field
17:12 < greg_tyrelle> so scientific interest groups ?
17:12 <@konrad_foerstner> the classical forums maybe?
17:13 <@konrad_foerstner> I actually never tried that for solving an _scientific_ problem
17:13 < pedrobeltrao> but it be even easier if you could just post on a blog and tag it as a question related to cell-cycle for ex
17:14 <@konrad_foerstner> so you would need a platform (science-questions.org?;)) for the tagging
17:15 < greg_tyrelle> http://www.scilink.com/m1/start.action
17:15 <@konrad_foerstner> okay, but this is a different approach
17:16 <@konrad_foerstner> has anybody experience with it?
17:16 < pedrobeltrao> not me .. but i will give it a try
17:18 < greg_tyrelle> okay then, I must get some sleep, it is after midnight and I"m starting to fade, thank you konrad for organising this end everyone else for joining in
17:18 <@konrad_foerstner> thank you, greg!
17:18 < greg_tyrelle> before I go will there be any futher chats ?
17:18 <@konrad_foerstner> yes
17:18 <@konrad_foerstner> tomorrow will be roland discussion
17:19 <@konrad_foerstner> same time
17:19 < rolandkrause> yep
17:19 < greg_tyrelle> excellent, I just started watching the screen cast
17:19 < greg_tyrelle> see you then
17:19 <@konrad_foerstner> see you
17:19 -!- greg_tyrelle [***] has quit ["leaving"]
17:20 <@konrad_foerstner> okay, are there any questions from you guys?
17:20 < stewtoo> I've got one...
17:22 <@konrad_foerstner> I hope you don't wait for my "okay". :)
17:22 < stewtoo> Do people think social networks like SciLink will be used for collaboration requests, discussing research etc. or will it be more of a MySpace type deal - keeping in contact with people you've collaborated with, talking about issues that affect everybody in the lab / university / country?
17:23 < stewtoo> Or both?
17:23 < rolandkrause> yep
17:23 < rolandkrause> I've have a collaboration though openbc
17:23 <@konrad_foerstner> yes, a mixture
17:24 < rolandkrause> and that is not even a dedicated science site
17:24 <@konrad_foerstner> can you tell the full story, please?
17:24 < stewtoo> What Konrad just said :)
17:25 < rolandkrause> Well, it's a short story, some one I barely knew was in need of a bioinformatician
17:26 < rolandkrause> so, as the my profile read 'collaboration' at that time, he contacted me
17:26 < rolandkrause> paper is in revision
17:26 <@konrad_foerstner> quick and nice :)
17:27 < rolandkrause> I don't think it works without any prior contact but that can be mediated - which is what the social networking sites are good at
17:27 < rolandkrause> I turned down to other requests, more due to time
17:28 <@konrad_foerstner> another point. how old is he roughly? I guess it's still a generation problem (even if openbc has quite old members)
17:28 < rolandkrause> my age (old)
17:28 < rolandkrause> mid-30s
17:28 <@konrad_foerstner> ;)
17:29 < michael_kuhn> I'm off... see you tomorrow
17:29 -!- michael_kuhn [***] has quit []
17:29 < rolandkrause> I don't think it's a generation problem - there are scientists that adopt everything quickly, and some youngsters that consider HTML a programming language
17:30 < pedrobeltrao> umm my younger brother always lived with internet. these things do make a difference
17:31 <@konrad_foerstner> rolandkrause: I disagree, for the average it is an age/culture thing
17:31 <@konrad_foerstner> even if there are exceptions
17:31 -!- lysin [***] has quit ["Verlassend"]
17:31 < stewtoo> Are we talking about social networks still, or just generally? If you look at who's writing science blogs it's almost always a student or young postdoc....
17:31 < rolandkrause> well, a fried of mine studies the thing for a news magazine
17:32 <@konrad_foerstner> what, OpenBC?
17:32 < rolandkrause> and the large crowd of millenials out watch the internet like they watch TV
17:33 < rolandkrause> no, the internet in general
17:33 < rolandkrause> but let's get back to OpenBC/Scilink etc
17:33 <@konrad_foerstner> okay, so we might be a peak and after us it's getting less again.
17:34 < rolandkrause> problem with openbc/linkedin is the focus on business
17:34 <@konrad_foerstner> at the moment
17:34 <@konrad_foerstner> with the shift to Xing it will change
17:34 < rolandkrause> why?
17:34 <@konrad_foerstner> they annnounced that at least
17:34 <@konrad_foerstner> because they saw there are not only business people in there
17:35 <@konrad_foerstner> don't know exactly what they want to change
17:36 <@konrad_foerstner> is everybody of you using such a social network?
17:36 < pedrobeltrao> none. altought i think i registered in orkut and maybe nature network boston
17:36 < stewtoo> I use LinkedIn, but not for much :)
17:37 <@konrad_foerstner> I use OpenBC
17:37 <@konrad_foerstner> my LinkedIn i never really used
17:37 <@konrad_foerstner> but science wise I had only once somebody unknown who just asked for the contact
17:38 < stewtoo> LinkedIn has these testimonials where you can leave feedback on people who've worked with you... that seems useful.
17:38 < stewtoo> Going back to the credentials issue for blogs.
17:39 < stewtoo> You could say only show me collaboration requests from people who have testimonials from people I know.
17:40 <@konrad_foerstner> true, but for this not sure if you have too many false negatives as there are not enough scientist in the network.
17:40 <@konrad_foerstner> is the critical mass really there?
17:41 < stewtoo> Well SciLink is interesting...
17:41 < stewtoo> when you sign up it suggests all of your past co-authors as contacts
17:41 < stewtoo> So you instantly have a network (that's the idea, anyway, I'd guess that those co-authors would probably just ignore the invites)
17:42 <@konrad_foerstner> yes, coming back to the generation problem.
17:43 <@konrad_foerstner> okay, any other question or more about the social networks?
17:44 < pedrobeltrao> i can imagine the face of my diploma thesis supervisor when he gets the invite :)
17:44 < pedrobeltrao> even my current boss would think it is spam
17:44 <@konrad_foerstner> an he is not that old
17:45 <@konrad_foerstner> so I guess we guys have to go on promoting the new concepts...
17:45 < rolandkrause> to some extent it becomes spam once you're famous
17:46 <@konrad_foerstner> which you get today in another way
17:46 <@konrad_foerstner> but true. I stopped orkut because of the fact that to many people were asking me.
17:47 < rolandkrause> yes, but the social network cannot be easily evaded
17:47 < rolandkrause> right
17:47 <@konrad_foerstner> as "real" scientific, too
17:47 < rolandkrause> and there are many people my age who feel uneasy about the public display of their contacts, which might be a good thing
17:47 <@konrad_foerstner> sorry, "real" scientific structures, too
17:48 < rolandkrause> check the studivz case
17:48 < pedrobeltrao> I have to go. Thank you all, it was interesting. bye
17:48 <@konrad_foerstner> agree, privacy issues. always a trade-off
17:49 -!- pedrobeltrao [***] has quit ["Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 1.5.0.8/2006102516]"]
17:49 <@konrad_foerstner> okay. more questions?
17:49 <@konrad_foerstner> or topics to discuss?
17:49 <@konrad_foerstner> Otherwise I would like to thank all of you.
17:50 <@konrad_foerstner> We had nearly 2 hours of a nice disussion.
17:50 <@konrad_foerstner> I will put this discussion on the platform
17:50 < stewtoo> Thanks Konrad
17:50 <@konrad_foerstner> Hope to see you tomorrow.
17:51 <@konrad_foerstner> 16:00 (CET)
17:51 <@konrad_foerstner> Rolands discussion
17:51 <@konrad_foerstner> +++ THE END +++


Powered by Plone CMS, the Open Source Content Management System