... Warning sounded on web's future. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)
"The internet needs a way to help people separate rumour from real science ..."
Isn't this a perennial problem, distinguishing true from false information? Someone posted a comment on this blog a couple of weeks ago about a supposed list of books that Sarah Palin had wanted banned from the public library in Wasilla, AK. It took me less than five minutes to determine that the list was genuine, but had nothing to do with Sarah Palin: It was the list of all books that have at one time or another, someplace or another, been banned in the U.S. Maybe it was all those years as a copy editor, but I like to check things out when they trigger that "interesting, if true" reflex. I don't think I'm alone in this, or uncommonly skeptical even.
It's perfectly simple. Those who report the information need to provide links, specific individuals and departments they have talked with, and other references that anybody else can contact, should they feel so obliged.
ReplyDeleteFrank,
ReplyDeleteI think your comments are right on. Unfortunately, a great many people don't follow through with any research, or just go to the source of the "rumor" for more information. Regarding science issues, the web is not alone in spreading silliness - with 24 hour programming to fill and the willingness to attract viewers and readers with whatever works, a lot of bad science and unverified science is splattered around in the media as factual.
I think I've posted this link before, but it's a humorous example that I can say isn't far off the mark. "Actual Expert Too Boring for TV" http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39473