
Trolls Are Ruining Science Journalism - donohoe
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/02/trolls-are-ruining-science-journalism/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=20130218&utm_content=smartnewssciencetrolls
======
lutusp
It's too bad the article didn't touch on the adverse effect science
journalists are having on science journalism. Every day we see another
"breakthrough" that isn't a breakthrough, a correlation reported as a cause-
effect relationship, or a premature conclusion based on one unreplicated
study.

~~~
zallarak
Well said - so much of science journalism and even academic publications are
attempts at career-advancement more than scientific advancement.

~~~
Thrall
In many countries, the amount of government money spent on scientific research
is rather low. Therefore a lot of researchers have to attract interest from
companies willing to fund them, otherwise they can't afford to do any research
at all. Unfortunately, even if the researcher is a good scientist and the data
is valid, they won't be able to continue in their field unless they dress it
up as the latest great breakthrough and hint that it will enable lots of
profitable new technology.

------
kintamanimatt
I wonder what their definition of "troll" is. It appears they're conflating
matter-of-fact criticism with true blue trolling. Perhaps by their definition,
I too am a troll and I've just helped cement your preexisting biases!

~~~
Wintamute
From the quotes in the article it looks like they're focussing on "uncivil
online comments", "rudeness", "name-calling" and "pushing people’s emotional
buttons, through derogatory comments". That gives a reasonable picture of
their definition of troll, doesn't it? And I don't think it's an unreasonable
one. I don't think there's much danger of conflating the above with civil,
rational debate. Not sure what you're getting at.

~~~
kintamanimatt
They also say that "trolls take pleasure in bashing a story from every
possible angle" and indicate that trolling involves leaving "negative
comments", both of which could include pointing out an article's flaws, for
example. Only later do they move on to these other definitions you mentioned.

Their definition of trolling appears to be a moving target throughout the
article and this is why I feel they're conflating actual trolling with benign
criticism.

In my experience, many people perceive all criticism to be rude and harsh. My
definition of rude might be different to yours and what I consider to be
straightforward criticism, someone else might consider to be a harsh rebuke!

~~~
vanderZwan
As I interpreted the article, it boils down to having emotional buttons pushed
and that blocking reasonable discourse - the intent is less important.

I don't think my German friends are trolling me when they freak out at the
word "nuclear" before I can even begin to describe the potential of Thorium,
but it's still a problem.

~~~
kintamanimatt
That's an even looser definition of trolling though! A comment that might push
my emotional buttons might wash over someone else, and vice versa. Many
things, including cultural and subcultural norms, will dictate what's
emotionally charged.

Why do your German friends freak out at the word "nuclear"?

------
konceptz
It's funny that a study from Wisconsin tries to speak about this as it's
similar if not exactly the same as this case:

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1189.ZS.html>

Without re-reading the case(from memory) the idea is that students didn't want
to pay fees that ALL student groups would be able to make use of. ie. Students
of Color paying for NeoNazi groups, etc..

The court ruled that the idea of higher education is bolstered by more extreme
specificity in as many areas as possible.

Drawing a parallel to this case, I for one, could argue that having strong
counterpoints helps me choose faster what side of a debate I am on. Thus, the
polarization is actually a quickened education of the subject matter resulting
in decision.

------
qthrul
Although science is that which explains and predicts, there is a wide range of
impact in the jump from journal to journalism.

A paradigm shift in the wake of a minor but widely experienceable portion of a
representative sample is simply more prone to recent advances in the speed and
dissemination of journalism. The all too observable phenomena of seeing
becoming believing.

Contrast this with any meta commentary upon a journal by the same body of
journalism. Indeed, it is much more difficult to see the wider reading
audience take an interest if said audience is less exposed to something
happening in their own back yards. Far more likely than paradigm shift is the
placement of a collective reading audience's heads in the sand.

------
SageRaven
The most useful take-away from the article:

"In other words, it appeared that pushing people’s emotional buttons, through
derogatory comments, made them double down on their preexisting beliefs."

Sounds like politics, doesn't it?

~~~
cpleppert
It doesn't just sounds like politics, it is politics. If something is about
more than just the truth and the 'answer' has consequences for you or your
tribal affiliates you are certainly going to fight against any conclusion that
seems to hurt you. Derogatory comments just raise the stakes for you.

The great thing about science is sooner or later the truth just bashes down
all resistance and makes holding contrary opinion impossible.

------
1337biz
Calling someone Troll on a science related subjects is tricky business.
Science is often based on some form of consensus that is evolving over time.
On many subjects, especial in social science, it is possible to show studies
coming to opposing results. Critic boils ultimately down to opinions on if the
sample size, method, research questions were the right choices.

I have my doubts that today Galileo Galilei wouldn't have been classified as a
troll as well as those back a while ago who made the wild accusation that
smoking causes cancer.

~~~
a_bonobo
I used to do a lot of science-blogging (not in English) and in our circles, a
troll wasn't something you'd get from 4chan who'd try to post offending
pictures etc., but a "lone crusader on a mission" -

someone with apparently unlimited time, someone with his or her own absolutely
crazy pet-theory [1], someone who would come to personally attack the author
on some past issue on every single post. These people ruin the entire blog,
you have to be fast to ban them (very useful with dynamic IPs..) and
constantly monitor the comments. I've personally been attacked in "open
letters" to government officials [2], calling me a "dangerous lying scientist"
because I had the audacity to shred apart a terrible paper on the "apparent
dangers" of WLANs.

I wouldn't see these people anywhere near Galilei.

[1] Examples: evolution is a lie, or global warming is a hoax, or the theory
of general relativity is wrong, or the blogger is a fraud

[2] - that no-one reads -

------
dcu
...and hacker news.

------
snowwrestler
It would be interesting to follow these people and their beliefs over time. I
know that in the face of hostility, my first instinct is to defend my point of
view. But later, after I've cooled down, I am able to consider both sides of
the argument more rationally. It's at this time--later--that my beliefs will
evolve.

------
homosaur
U mad, science?

