Sign in or Join FriendFeed
FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more »
Daniel Mietchen
No mention of friendfeed, so what about writing a correspondence piece on this? It could be based on http://ff4s-paper.wikidot.com/start and perhaps also put the recent NIH grant for a "Facebook for Scientists" ( http://ff.im/beKk7 ) in perspective by providing an overview over existing tools along these lines and why they are not widely used. - Daniel Mietchen
http://www.cell.com/authors... / Correspondence: "The Correspondence format provides our readers with the opportunity to respond to an article in Cell—either a research article or Leading Edge article—that has been published within the last 2 months. Correspondence should be no more than 900 words in length with up to five references and should be of interest to the broad readership, providing new information or a fresh perspective on the published article. If selected for publication, the Correspondence will be sent to the authors of the published article for a response." - Daniel Mietchen
Now that sounds like a good idea! I'm all for it - especially mention the gazillion "facbook for scientists" already out there. - Björn Brembs
I gave it a start at http://etherpad.com/Microbl... - feel free to join in! - Daniel Mietchen
Added some stuff... - Björn Brembs
333 words so far, and once the generic FF description and some highlights from the spreadsheet are in, we will be near the limit. So probably no time to dwell on fb4sci, though I would still like to mention the NIH grant in the hope that those people will build on the ideas we lay out. - Daniel Mietchen
Maybe steer away from a "but we want to talk about friendfeed" towards more "there is a much richer set of tools out there...and here is a good example..."? Might mean the Fb4Sci stuff can get squeezed in? - Cameron Neylon
I would actually prefer the Fb4Sci stuff in there, and the article would be more balanced if we were to name a few more services that offer microblogging (I listed some in the Organization part of the document). FF can then be described in two sentences as a particularly useful example because it provides hierarchies of threaded conversations in which the most current and the most popular entries compete for the top of attention. - Daniel Mietchen
Correspondence has to be submitted within two months, so we got four weeks to go if we are to submit something on the matter. Perhaps we can indeed expand this into a general overview on the potential of web 2.0 stuff for science. To this end, I just started a vote on the "open science breakthrough of the year" at http://ff.im/cidKG . - Daniel Mietchen
thanks guys - a very interesting read (the paper, these responses, the etherpad document). I've added a couple of possibly-relevant points to the etherpad doc. :) - Allyson Lister
...bumping to remind me to try and do something about this before deadline... - Cameron Neylon
To those coordinating this: let me know if you need any extra help with anything... - Allyson Lister
Allyson, help with shortening the FF part and with adding in something on the non-FF alternatives would certainly do something good to push things forward at this stage. Thanks! - Daniel Mietchen
Edited a bit and tried to merge the new contributions into the draft. The word count for the FF part now stands at ~570 excluding FF real science examples. I still don't see how we can give an overview of more than one of these services and accomplish anything better than a boring enumeration without spirit. On the contrary, people will just get the impression that scientists can't make up their minds anyway, everybody hangs out at different places and there's way too much out there to even test only one out. I think featuring more than FF will have the exact opposite effect. - Björn Brembs
Correction: 660 words... :-) - Björn Brembs
See also Jean-Claude's stylesheet about FriendFeed + Science ? FFscience: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc... - Pierre Lindenbaum
Thanks, Pierre, was already mentioned. Just added some examples from this spreadsheet. Word count is now at 760. Tasks remaining (if you agree on the general structure): polishing and final, concluding paragraph. Tasks remaining if you don't agree: re-write :-) - Björn Brembs
have removed a few words, tightened things up. will do more as time permits - Allyson Lister
Getting there ... >800 words. - Björn Brembs
953, so some trimming needed. Mentioned the NIH grant in the roundup section. Which references to take? - Daniel Mietchen
Good job, Daniel! I think the references are fairly clear, most of them are in the text already (i.e., papers from FF). We have until December 30 to get it all finalized, so we have some time, but I'd rather get it there sooner than later. I think a few more runs of polishing and honing and we should get the final author list together and submit. I suggest everybody who wants to be an author leave the URL to their FFfeed at the end, that way readers get an idea of what FF looks like. - Björn Brembs
What about signing with a group pseudonym (something like D H J Polymath; http://arxiv.org/find... ) and a link to this thread or the etherpad? - Daniel Mietchen
I have inquired with them whether links count as references. - Daniel Mietchen
@Daniel as a pseudonym, I suggest to use what Deepak calls the "BioGang" http://openwetware.org/wiki... http://www.linkedin.com/groups... - Pierre Lindenbaum
What about the title? "Should you be sharing science online?" would be my favourite but it is not reflective of the current emphasis. Any suggestions? - Daniel Mietchen
Pierre - good one. Perhaps add FF as initials? - Daniel Mietchen
BTW, the doi does not resolve - anybody has the correct one? - Björn Brembs
895 words... - Björn Brembs
I like Clay's idea for a title: "It's not information overflow, it's filter failure " :) - Allyson Lister
884 words, and a few more slight tweaks. This means we could probably fit an entire sentence about other approaches' existence, if we wanted :) - Allyson Lister
@Allyson: awesome! @daniel, sorry, meant this one: http://dx.doi.org/10...) - Björn Brembs
Added ref 4: the NAR paper ( http://tinyurl.com/mr5kvm ) - Pierre Lindenbaum
Right now this sentence is a mixture of DOIs & links: which to use? : "Such conference coverage has even received direct (e.g. ISMB09 http://www.iscb.org/ismbecc..., BioSysBio09 http://dx.doi.org/10...) or indirect (e.g. ISMB08) support from the conference organizers, see e.g. http://friendfeed.com/ismbecc... ." We can convert them all to links, & save some of the 5 publications, but all three examples here have papers associated with them (well, ISMB09 paper is accepted) - Allyson Lister
Ah - actually it looks like the ref we would use for ISMB08 is actually ref 1 - am I correct? There isn't much detail in ref 1 yet. That could solve part of the problem - Allyson Lister
I'd also like to find that out, but the DOI does not resolve (for me?). Haven't looked at ref1 yet, to determine if it's redundant. - Björn Brembs
The DOI, if intact, should point to http://genomebiology.com/2009... , which is behind the paywall for me but perhaps Allyson can give us a hint ;-) - Daniel Mietchen
Sorry - yes, @Daniel, the DOI seems broken, but the genomebiology link is the correct one. If we're limited for references, we could just link to the FF room, which is http://friendfeed.com/biosysb... - Allyson Lister
We have 5 references and thus I added Allyson's to make it 5 :-) - Björn Brembs
Question as to whether its advisable to include reference to the RW room. I think someone raised this somewhere but I can't see the discussion now. - Cameron Neylon
Otherwise made a few very minor changes - Cameron Neylon
I'm about adding a ref to O'Reilly/"Beautiful Data". The collaboration for this book started here: http://friendfeed.com/fgibson... - Pierre Lindenbaum
@Cameron - yep, a few of us have brought up that point (me and michael and some others I think in the etherpad doc). I'm happy to go with whatever the owners of the room, or the general consensus, wants :) - Allyson Lister
Cameron, do you have a reference for the second grant? I am only aware of http://www.labgrab.com/users... . - Daniel Mietchen
Added mention of polymath project. - Daniel Mietchen
Found reference mentioning both grants: http://www.nih.gov/news... . - Daniel Mietchen
RW room discussion is in the header of the document. IMHO there are several crucial reasons for finally going public: it's a grey area probably still fair use; more subscribers mean more access; readers will see the usefulness of this room, even if they don't get any of the other features; the kinds of hoops we have to jump through to get access need to be made public and the room has a significant record now. - Björn Brembs
I think we need to drop ref 6 since we only have 5 and it's not a journal article, correct? - Björn Brembs
With Etherpad deleting everything by March 31, we should think of ways to archive existing pads - particularly relevant for this one, as it was meant to be citable. As far as I can tell, none of the currently available options preserves the version history, so if we want to have that, we should do a screencast. - Daniel Mietchen
Indeed, we need to think of something! - Björn Brembs
Incidentally, the threat of such services disappearing certainly contributes to the hesitation of people to adopt social networks, and the best ways I see to cope with that problem is to have either open standards on data portability, or - better still - social networks (or at least one of the most suitable ones) that are built entirely open source platforms, with open configuration (and of course data portability too). Any suggestions on whether and how this could fit into the concluding paragraph? - Daniel Mietchen
Isn't it already in there, sort of? Where we write that these tools are in development and NIH funded? - Björn Brembs from iPhone
Haven't seen mention of open source and open standards in the news on these NIH grants, so it may be worth making more clear that this is needed. - Daniel Mietchen
Interesting turn: Etherpad will remain operative until at least when they release their source code. http://etherpad.com/ep... . - Daniel Mietchen
Upon feedback from Graham, I took the RW reference out. Still think some mention of Open Source would be good. http://www.nih.gov/news... does not mention it. 816 words. - Daniel Mietchen
Can we be part of that feedback, please? I find the RW functionality so convincing for non-social web users that I fear the whole article might be wasted, i.e, preaching to the converted, without this component. - Björn Brembs
It was in a DM that I just forwarded to you (dunno whether that works), and I asked him to comment here too. - Daniel Mietchen
Did anyone manage to do a screencast? I could try and do that today if its useful? But maybe better to wait until you feel is finished? - Cameron Neylon
I think we should wait until it's basically submitted. - Björn Brembs
@Daniel: DM was blocked (private). - Björn Brembs
Nothing wrong in testing, otherwise I'd also wait till it's submitted. @Björn - sent you screenshot. - Daniel Mietchen
Apart from inclusion of the RW room, the title has not been decided yet. Two suggestions are in there now (I threw away my older one). - Daniel Mietchen
Also, what about the "like=bookmark" discussion? I would like to see that paragraph go back in. - Daniel Mietchen
I thought that like=bookmark was clear from the context? If not, then it should be easy to add a sentence to make it explicit. - Björn Brembs
Björn - see chat bar - Michael was not comfortable with the notion. Any other opinions? Also turned Shirky quote from title to quote and set the title to "Social filtering of scientific information - a view beyond Twitter". - Daniel Mietchen
Besides, FF search has now been unusably slow for weeks, so I wonder whether we should take this formerly excellent feature off the draft. See also http://ff.im/cO3Jw . - Daniel Mietchen
Two weeks left to submit. I plan to do it on Sat (Dec 19) around noon UTC. Still to address: RW room and perhaps ephemerality of non-Open Source services like FF. I think I saw somewhere that FF have released (part of) their source code, or plan to do so. Anyone know details? - Daniel Mietchen
Added "the permanence of services whose source code is not public" as an unresolved issue. brushing welcome. What about the RW room? - Daniel Mietchen
Also, authors need to identify themselves in the document, or they will be missed. Academic affiliations and FF feeds, please! - Björn Brembs
Like the current version a lot! Also the source code permanence point was important! We should get it ready, clear authorship and author order. My suggestion is Daniel in front, me in the back and whoever feels should have a place in the middle, but I'm flexible (or does author order matter here at all?). From Bill's argument, we should leave the reference to the RW room in, but I'm also flexible there. If there are no storms of protest now, let's keep it the way it is. - Björn Brembs
I did some more brushing - 899 words now without the title (spot landing). As for authoring, I would really like to go for a group pseudonym (as explained above), but the submission process will probably ask for the usual contact information (incl. email) anyway. Order does not matter to me. Will check back in about 36h, with the intention to submit. - Daniel Mietchen
I was only pointing out that if you mention the RW room at all, you might as well name it. The poll stands at 41 votes (~25% representation, but it seems to me that there aren't many more than 41 really active contributors/users). The tally is No - 56%; Yes - 32%; Unsure - 12%. I don't think the piece loses much by deleting the mention of the RW room, and it seems to me that the users prefer to continue to keep quiet for now. - Bill Hooker
I tend to agree with Bill. It seems to me that mentioning (and in doing so effectively naming) the RW room is not what users (that cared to vote) want FULL STOP - Jan Wessnitzer from iPod
(1) The point of the letter is to attract scientists who are not using social media for their work to FF. As far as I can tell, the one single thing that everybody can profit from that doesn't already exist in mailinglists etc. is the sharing of papers. Moreover, this is also the one single aspect that touches every single reader, as nobody has access to all the literature. So while it only occupies as small part of the article, it seems to me it's the only one which specifically addresses the non-social savvy people, while the other points address those already using this technology to some extent. - Björn Brembs
(2) This has been mentioned before, but I see no reason why one would have any interest other than supporting closed access, in keeping quiet. The purpose of the room clearly is to 'document', so nobody in his/her right mind would think that their actions remain anonymous. This means that everybody participating must have been well aware that one day this documentation will be published. I have not heard why this letter is a worse choice of publication than any other, later choice. To not publish at all would defeat the stated purpose of the room and is therefore not a valid argument. - Björn Brembs
(3) I have now voted often enough to skew the results to more than 50% 'yes'. Who can verify that this has not occurred before, on the 'no' side? - Björn Brembs
Bjoern, I do agree with your arguments. W.r.t. (3), I was merely trying to argue that the vote should be respected (if it were representative). Allowing multiple votes clearly screwed that up beyond repair! ;) - Jan Wessnitzer
BTW, I voted 'yes' and maybe the only way to do this now is to vote openly here in the Forum! - Jan Wessnitzer
@Bjoern: "I see no reason why one would have any interest other than supporting closed access, in keeping quiet" -- are you going to pay my legal bills for me, if I get sued? That's a completely serious question. I'm one of the heaviest suppliers of papers in the room -- if anyone is targeted, I certainly will be. I have said many times that I don't think I am doing anything wrong OR illegal, but I and others have also said many times that "right" has little to do with the outcome of legal procedings in the US (and elsewhere). - Bill Hooker
@Bjoern, cont'd: I see no reason to think that (before you fucked it up :-) ) the vote was not representative, which means that most of the RW room users were less willing than you to take up arms against their closed-access oppressors. Judge that as you will, my friend, but some of us have limited resources. If even one publisher sends even one cease-and-desist letter to FriendFeed we can kiss the room goodbye; and if even one publisher sues me I do not have the wherewithal to do anything but lose as fast and cheaply as possible. I certainly could not *expect* support from other RW users, and though I suspect no small number would in fact step up, it would not be enough. - Bill Hooker
@Bjoern, cont'd: I fucking HATE that I have to make this calculation. I would rather publish and be damned -- if the publishers do send lawyers, mount an international campaign in defense of the room and its users and bring their shitty empire crashing down around their beancounting ears. But I have my newly acquired all-American cowardice to consider: I have no health insurance and my wife has no job. If we get sick we're fucked; if I get sued we're fucked. Others have their own reasons for preferring to err on the side of spinelessness here, which is why I thought we should vote -- and why I continue to think we should respect the (pre-fuckup) outcome of that vote. I cannot tell you how much it galls me to be on the opposite side of this debate from you, but there it is. - Bill Hooker
P.S. I do not really think I can be accused of "supporting closed access"... merely of refusing to fight it to -- not my, but my family's -- last drop of cash... - Bill Hooker
IMHO, the 'no' voters here are blowing the matter way out of proportion. I'll try and put it back into proportion, which may or may not work :-) - Björn Brembs
@Neil: Good point. I think it may not be all that much of FF for us, but for people not using social media for their work, it may well be *the only* useful thing they can see in this article. That's one of the reasons I'm fighting for it to remain in the letter. I agree, for anybody who is already using this technology, the RW room may only be a minor benefit, compared to the rest of the features. - Björn Brembs
To all those who "are not willing to put their livelihoods on the line": what part of "document" did you not understand when you signed up? Bill used the right description for this kind of behavior: cowardice. But if you really think our little room of 40 scientists with inadequate access to scientific literature will wake a sleeping giant, I have several additional accurate descriptions. - Björn Brembs
(1) Delusion. If you really think someone like Elsevier is risking their 800 millions annual profit in tax payer money by going after people who can barely support themselves, you must be deluded. The music industry doesn't have any profits left to lose, but publishers do. They wouldn't be making record profits during the worst financial crisis in 80 years if they really were so stupid to go after us. - Björn Brembs
(2) Stockholm syndrome. How many salaries and healthcare plans could you pay from 800 million each year from Elsevier alone? Basically, these guys take your salary and your healthcare and then hold you ransom to shut up and keep your head down - and in response you have nothing better to do than to defend that behavior and cozy up with your captors? You must be the only ones who can see any shred of sanity in such behavior. - Björn Brembs
(3) Hypocrisy. Isn't it hypocritical to oppose a regime on the surface but then support it when real action needs to be taken? Isn't it ironic that a German is arguing for and volunteering to putting your actions where your mouth is and Americans are arguing in favor of personal safety long before any hint of a serious threat is even perceivable? - Björn Brembs
(4) Paranoia. There is no precedence of any publisher going after individuals. Publishers have much more to lose than we. Thus, the only potential threat is purely in your minds. There isn't even the slightest hint of any hazard for any one of us on the horizon, yet you defend yourselves against imaginary future actions of your oppressors. More than any of the above, this paranoia symbolizes the stranglehold the status quo has on the scientific community. More than anything above, this paranoia shows how this effect of publishers on scientists (and librarians) needs to be broken. If we start imagining the companies where we publish our work going after our livelihoods simply because we want to read our own words, then we're way past the point where these companies need to be stopped. - Björn Brembs
(5) Documentation. This thread, more than any number of exchanged papers documents how bad corporate publishers are for the scientific community. Their stranglehold on the community stifles freedom and liberty, intimidates all community members to the point that they delude themselves, develop paranoia and act hypocritically. I think this thread documents more than anything else in this room what devastating effects our current system has on our minds: it warps them, bends them to their will and in the end infects us all, if we don't do something about it. Every argument documented in this thread against publication, is indeed an argument for publication: if your minds are so twisted and frightened that you think this little letter with a mention of this small room may amount to a threat to your livelihoods, the effects of corporate publishers on the scientific community are much worse than even I imagined. I thought the status quo was bad for science and scientists. It seems, it is also bad for our mental health as well. - Björn Brembs
(6) Anticipatory obedience. It is a well-known consequence of dictatorships around the world that individuals in these dictatorships support the dictator even if there is no explicit force, merely because they imagine some bad consequence for themselves or their family if they wouldn't support the dictator. In Germany, every child is raised with what the term 'anticipatory obedience' means. We are being taught how it works to stop all potential threats to democracy at the roots. - Björn Brembs
1) Elsevier has lawyers on retainer, sending a take down letter costs them very little and makes a point - compare to RIAA - how many college students did they take to court? they are actually legally in their right so you would lose without even a trial 4) it's not paranoia if they really are after you. There is a precedence - in the OSTP letters someone complained about ACM going after a Taiwanese grad student - Christina Pikas
Björn, don't take this for more than the friendly advice that it is: I don't think it will win over many people in a debate (or win you many friends) to accuse those who are not willing to publicly encourage illegal activities of suffering from delusions, Stockholm syndrome, hypocrisy, and paranoia. - Lars Juhl Jensen
Re-reading my posts from this morning, it seems indeed I may have over-exaggerated my points a bit too far. It was and still is my purpose to rouse people and ruffle some feathers on a topic which to me is the worst side of my job. In my frustration that even people who I thought were on my side don't dare to leave their comfort zone for something I find so important, I may have gone a bit to far and I apologize. I am passionate about science and sometimes it happens that one gets carried away when one is so passionately involved. Judging by the opposition I'm facing, I may be too passionately involved compared to the rest of the people here. Therefore, I'll try to be more dispassionate in the future and to not let our current way of publishing frustrate me so much any more. Let's leave the mention of the room out of the letter, I give up. Let's also change the description of the room, just to be sure. - Björn Brembs
Hadn't voted earlier, but vote now for the references to RW to be included in the article. (nice commentary/response BTW) . RW room is one great thing that you guys are doing and should be proud of. People like me who have no access to any scientific literature (that OA or PNAS or some other because of my country of origination (india) ) are able to do science because of that support; that said I agree that for those who are providing this service, it may be detrimental if a big publisher indeed goes full steam ahead with a legal proceeding. If it was India I wouldn't have cared two hoots about legal proceedings, but in US things are different.Just hope that letter (with or without the actual naming of RW) at least entices more scientists to FF and encourages them to not only use FF, but also become more open access prone and truly collaborative and open as the spirit of current breed of FF scientists is . - Sandeep Gautam
I am basically offline now and thus postpone submission until Dec 22. Hope to be able to comment in more detail tomorrow night. - Daniel Mietchen
@Bjoern: I do understand your position, and I cannot disagree with a lot of what you say. But this is my point of view when I step back a little. 1) the number of subscribers to the room cannot claim to represent the sceintific community (they may or may not be representative, but the claim cannot be made based on the numbers). Nor do I think it can claim to represent the scientific community on FF (it may or it may not). 2) Although the room says its objective is to 'document', the activity is around 'providing'. 3) copyright laws are different in different countries and regulations around conduct are different in different institutions (hence consequences will be different for each individual in the room, and one needs to be sensitive to that). 4) By giving room for the argument that what is being done is 'not totally legal' to be made, one risks alienating people that do not want to be perceived in that light but that would otherwise have supported the room (or the FF community in general). Further, it may end up alienating sceintists that are already in FF. 5) without being perceived as 'representative' then one risks being seen as rogue. Rogues are squashed. 6) I have no problem with putting myself on the line, but not for a battle that I dont think can be won at this point in time (and that may not even be noticed by the larger community). I dont think that it is cowardice, but caution. I just dont think it is the time yet, because I dont think that we can claim to represent. My position would be lets keep building (progress is being made there), and continue to move forward and make the move when the voice is loud enough that it cannot be ignored. Then you have a guaranteed win. - Kubke
@Kubke: Indeed, very measured words. Last night I've also come to the conclusion that apparently, the situation is not bad enough, yet, for people to seriously push for change. It first has to become a lot worse, before it will get better, I totally agree. - Björn Brembs
I just rephrased the critical section (lines 45-47). further brushing welcome. - Daniel Mietchen
That letter looks great! Kudos to all of you! - Kubke
Sorry, won't make it today. Next online time scheduled for 27, just in time. - Daniel Mietchen
Just submitted. Latest version: http://etherpad.com/ep... . - Daniel Mietchen
@Daniel - thanks for submitting, and for including me :) - Allyson Lister
Just caught up on the thread as I was on vacation for the past week or so. I'll just say that although I am not a member of the room in question, I am in agreement with those who did not wish its inclusion. - Allyson Lister
Got mail from Cell: "Dear Dr. Mietchen, Thank you for your proposal to write a Correspondence for Cell in response to the article on tweeting by Laura Bonetta published in the October 30th 2009 issue of Cell. Your proposal has now been discussed by the Cell editorial team. We think that your proposal would work well as a 500-word online comment. Our new online comments feature enables continuing debate about published Cell articles in an online environment. If you are interested in this possibility, please condense your Correspondence so that it is no more than 500 words. Then go to www.cell.com and access the Analysis article, then click the comment button and cut and paste your comment. Please let me know if you plan to submit an online comment. Thank you for your interest in Cell. Yours sincerely, Orla Smith, PhD Editor, Cell's Leading Edge". I replied that we would go for the 500-word online comment. - Daniel Mietchen
I hadn't even noticed the comment feature before but here are three previous comments on the Bonetta article: http://www.cell.com/comment... . The first one by Jo Badge ( http://friendfeed.com/jobadge ) already tells much of our story, and we could simply build on it. An easy way to comply with the 500-word limit (which is stated as 8000 characters in the guidelines for posting comments) would be to just split it in two. - Daniel Mietchen
Found out why I hadn't seen the comment feature before: The comments are only visible if you access the article directly via cell.com (I usually go there via sciencedirect.com). - Daniel Mietchen
It seems the comments are not indexed by Google - taking the first sentence of Jo's comment as a search string does not yield any results: http://www.google.de/search... . In other words, the comments are basically unfindable and thus useless. Perhaps we could add this point, possibly in a classical printed correspondence? - Daniel Mietchen
Asked Cell Press via Twitter: http://ff.im/dC7Na . - Daniel Mietchen
I just tried to add our comment. It was below 8k text chars but contained links, which blew it up to well over 10k, so it was rejected automatically. I thus think it is best to post the stuff jointly on our blogs (using the title "Social filtering of scientific information - a view beyond Twitter") tonight, and I have put the HTML source for that into http://bit.ly/7ejHlJ . - Daniel Mietchen
I'm surprised that the comments aren't indexed, and that does make it much less inviting as a method of replying to the article. - Allyson Lister
Just for completeness: Part of FF has been made open source as Tornado: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009... (via @joergkurtwegner ) - Daniel Mietchen
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the result of this discussion has been co-blogged (on Jan 7) - see discussions at http://ff.im/dWgq7 and http://ff.im/dWEfv and http://ff.im/dWkaN . - Daniel Mietchen