Comments on: Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology

By: Do You Believe in Social Networks for Researchers ? | Open Your Innovation

Do You Believe in Social Networks for Researchers ? | Open Your Innovation — Sun, 16 May 2010 10:00:40 +0000

[...] David Crotty’s blog [...]

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:28:49 +0000

Link fixed, thanks for catching that. I think the reluctance to comment goes far beyond worries about link-rot and comments disappearing. See more details in my response to your other comment here.

By: Brian H

Brian H — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:57:16 +0000

Addendum: it was Barend Mons, and the original link is http://www,wikiprofessional.org/conceptweb , which needs both a period and the addition of the second www. to work.

By: Brian H

Brian H — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:51:12 +0000

Reluctance to participate in any of the 2.0 sites in part comes from fear of their losing the Darwinian competition, and thereby consigning all one’s contributions and stored data and writing to the Link-Rot Void. At a minimum, portability and mirroring would provide some reassurance, I’d think.

Edit note to somebody: whoever linked their name to Knewco put a comma after a www and killed it. ( http://www.www,wikiprofessional.org/conceptweb ) Why it requires 2 ‘www’s is also a mystery, but it does — one doesn’t work!!

By: minas sak

minas sak — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:42:24 +0000

There are tons of paradigms from the past ,that shows us that some of the greatest papers were not fully appreciated immediatelly, but some of them needed more than 50 years.Publishing in a mainsteam journal, offer your paper the chance to be judged from history, because it will be there forever!!!

By: SLOG: Serious Blog « Science Intelligence and InfoPros

SLOG: Serious Blog « Science Intelligence and InfoPros — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:50:40 +0000

[...] Crotty, David. Why Web 2.O is failing in Biology. Bench Marks blog, online, Feb. 2008: http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/ [...]

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:53:55 +0000

Definitely a deliberately provocative title, but also a pretty accurate one. You could certainly argue that we’re in the early days, and things will catch on over time, but so far, “failing” is a good description for most efforts. And I don’t think the issue is one of attitude–most scientists I meet with are interested and looking for helpful tools. The problem is that the tools themselves generally fail to serve a useful purpose, require large time/effort investments, and aren’t that much better than what’s already available in the offline world. Better tools that save time and effort are what’s needed, not gung-ho enthusiasm (there’s way too much of that online already).

By: Christopher Dyer

Christopher Dyer — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:21:01 +0000

Provocative title about a subject that really hasn’t even had a chance. We’re trying a new approach to these tools on the following site.
http://www.sci-mate.org/wiki/index.php/About_Sci-Mate

Our goal is to attract the nay-sayers and show them how having a positive attitude to cooperation can make a big difference.

By: Why Web 2.0 is failing in biology? « Science Intelligence and InfoPros

Why Web 2.0 is failing in biology? « Science Intelligence and InfoPros — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:13:39 +0000

[...] Crotty, David. Why Web 2.O is failing in Biology. Bench Marks blog, online, Feb. 2008: http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/ [...]

By: What’s New at Open Book Systems » Blog Archive » Who needs Web 2.0?

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:31:24 +0000

[...] given a few talks on why these new tools are failing to catch on — here’s an early one given at a publishers meeting, and a later one given to an audience of scientists. The short answer, if you don’t [...]