Andy on Twitter

  • At least Dan recognises he's running a dictatorship with little interest in other voices. Ironic quote given he's… ,
  • Imagine what Voice AI can add to this. ,
  • Great read... ,
  • Love the new bike ... how about launching in Australia! Soon. No, actually, now. Please.,
  • I'm not sure is lying. He's just terribly confused about everything. Needs a break. And we need a… ,
  • Probably a good idea to leave family out of it... but perhaps it might give him cause to reflect t… ,
  • 100% Same old patter. Same old policies. And maybe even that would give the Premiers some time together - at which… ,
  • It's incredible how many Premiers are content to use Twitter to spew their punitive policies and big help messages… ,
  • Is a common theme... just look at the Political response to Covid. One expert to inform all vs collective views and… ,
  • Spot on. Just look at what is going on in Melbourne. There is a vast difference between authotarian rule and managi… ,
  • Exactly... Professors’ message for Daniel Andrews: redo the coronavirus modelling ,
  • Spot on... Victoria's roadmap out of lockdown is the wrong approach. Here's what good public policy looks like ,
  • Connect

the Internet makes us superficial

Definitely plan to write more on this… Nick points to A recent edition of Science featured a worrying paper by University of Chicago sociologist James A. Evans titled Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship.

Seeking to learn more about how research is conducted online, Evans scoured a database of 34 million articles from science journals. He discovered a paradox: as journals begin publishing online, making it easier for researchers to find and search their contents, research tends to become more superficial.

Evans summarizes his findings in a new post on the Britannica Blog:

[My study] showed that as more journals and articles came online, the actual number of them cited in research decreased, and those that were cited tended to be of more recent vintage. This proved true for virtually all fields of science … Moreover, the easy online availability of sources has channeled researcher attention from the periphery to the core—to the most high-status journals. In short, searching online is more efficient, and hyperlinks quickly put researchers in touch with prevailing opinion, but they may also accelerate consensus and narrow the range of findings and ideas grappled with by scholars.

If part of the Carr thesis [in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”] is that we are lazier online, and if efficiency is laziness (more results for less energy expended), then in professional science and scholarship, researchers yearn to be lazy…they want to produce more for less.

Ironically, my research suggests that one of the chief values of print library research is its poor indexing. Poor indexing—indexing by titles and authors, primarily within journals—likely had the unintended consequence of actually helping the integration of science and scholarship. By drawing researchers into a wider array of articles, print browsing and perusal may have facilitated broader comparisons and scholarship.

Speak Up — Add Your Thoughts

Connections

  • Connect
How did you connect?   [?]