This morning Dr. Isis woke up feeling reasonably well, but a little run down. By the afternoon my mild malaise had degenerated into a full blown, achy body, swollen tonsil, sore throat. I've had a little Nyquil and now have a profound urge to blog.
[I'm going to keep putting stuff behind the cut for the time being. Just remember that having to click to keep reading helps fund our APS award. Now, man up and click]
Figure 1: A current view of Isis's throat. I think the bacteria hung the disco ball on my uvula. Little fuckers.
What I'd specifically like to blog about before the sleep fairy carries me off to night-night land is the role of standards in blogging. You see, when I first joined ScienceBlogs I was wary of giving up my Blogspot freedoms. However, my ScienceBlogs contract specifically stated that I have complete editorial freedom over the content of my blog. I had a very specific conversation with one of the ScienceBlogs overlords in which I asked, "Does this mean that I can post pornography every day and you won't censor me?" They said, "Yup!" I signed on the dotted line post-haste.
Video 1: See? Sexually explicit video = total editorial freedom.
But, I'm starting to think this is not a good idea and that ScienceBlogs will never be taken seriously as a source for science content unless we adopt some standards. I mean, when you've got blogs where people are writing about their kids, blogging about culture (or some crap like that), writing pseudonymously, or posting 20-30 YouTube videos a day, how can you be taken seriously as being "committed to strengthening public interest in science and improving public understanding of science around the world?" That is why I am so thankful that the New York Times has written standards for their online content. You can read them here. I would beseech the editorial staff at ScienceBlogs to adopt them en face, specifically the following portions:
1) What should be avoided in all of them is any hint of racist, sexist or religious bias, or any suggestion of nasty, snide, sarcastic, or condescending tone -- "snark." Our ethics code promises that in all dealings with readers, "civility applies."
ScienceBlogs should immediately implement standards that prevent bloggers from ever being condescending or questioning anything that might have a basis in someone's faith. People who read blogs are simply not ready for that. More importantly, incivility or emotion in the discourse is never, ever warranted. Even when people on one side of the discourse have the ability to convince people to make dangerous choices. Also, bloggers should avoid snarky exchanges, even when they disagree with each other.
2) Contractions, colloquialisms and even slang are, generally speaking, more allowable in blogs than in print. But obscenity and vulgarity are not, and of course unverified assertions of fact, blind pejorative quotes, and other lapses in journalistic standards don't ever belong in blogs.
3) If something could easily fit in a satirical Web site for young adults, it probably shouldn't go into the news pages of nytimes.com.
Now that Dr. Isis is outside of that annoying 18-29 bracket, I find most people within this age group disdainful. Snot-nosed, ignorant, obnoxious little things. Especially undergraduate and graduate students. I really have no time for them and, mostly, they annoy me with their constant whining, questions, hilarity, and general tech savviness. Focusing content on this demographic is a complete waste of time. Besides, kids have no interest in science, so let's all agree to end the satire, here and now, especially when dealing with established institutions. There is no place for hilarious cat pictures on ScienceBlogs.
4) But the key qualifying phrase here about the "distinctive point of view" or opinion that may be allowable is that the piece "makes a case for it [the point of view] with reporting." Remember, blogs on the news side of NYTimes.com are not the personal, private blogs of the contributors, but blogs of Times employees, whose reputations depend on readers' trust in their impartiality.
With that, I expect PalMD, Mark Hoofnagle, and Orac to be on the phone with Jenny McCarthy tomorrow getting her side of the story. No questions asked. I trust in your impartiality. Also, enough with your kids' artwork. Doodles have no place in serious science writing.
5) As one newsroom editor who has handled a lot of blog copy has noted, "We should encourage smart analysis -- indeed, that's what will provide the most value in many blogs, and the basis on which they compete with other blogs and Web sites devoted to the same topics.
Indeed, bitches. Oops, see number two. Finally, with regards to standards for you scrappy commenters:
6) Moderating reader comments on blogs involves the same Times ethical and journalistic standards that apply to articles. Our moderators' guidelines say they should not edit unacceptable blog comments to make them acceptable; if the comments contain vulgarity, obscenity, offensive personal attacks, say that somebody "sucks," or are incoherent, moderators are advised just to chuck them out. We try to encourage commenters to use their real names, and normally must not pick up reader comments for use in news articles without verifying their identity. On rare occasions, pseudonymous quotations by commenters may be used to indicate the tone of Web reaction to a major news development or situation, but all such quotations are inherently anonymous and therefore subject to the rules governing anonymity in news articles -- i.e. no pejorative remarks, no unverifiable assertions of fact or motives, etc.
If you say that I "suck" in this comments thread, you should be prepared to be banned for life. Also, I think ScienceBlogs should institute a no vulgarity clause for its commenters and I hope that none of you will consider leaving a bit of hot vulgarity in this thread. Serious discourse cannot happen in a place that allows open use of the word "suck." Finally, I think that if we can't verify a commenter's real identity, or the fact that their PhD came from Harvard, we should never, ever reference them. They clearly cannot have anything of value to add to the discussion. Come to think of it, pseudonymous bloggers can't be credible either. I would like to suggest that ScienceBlogs force all of the pseudonymous bloggers to reveal their identities and post their CVs. That way ScienceBlogs readers can more easily determine whether they should trust a particular blogger's commentary.
ScienceBlogs, we are on the cusp of a revolution - a revolution in which the public begins reading blogs as a major source of information. We have the choice to adopt standards and be a first rate organization like the New York Times or continue down the path of mediocrity we've been on. It is up to us to determine whether we will aim for their high standard of excellence and be taken seriously as the authority on, well, anything.
The choice is yours, fuckmonkeys (oops, see number two).
[h/t to the ScienceBlogs Not-the-Intern-Anymore for sharing this with me.]
Education & Careers
Comments
Lots of your links are "mailto" or "chrome"....
Posted by: Coturnix | March 22, 2009 1:16 AM
Weird! It's all that one paragraph! I wonder what I did??
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 22, 2009 1:21 AM
LOL, you fucking suck at linking, but the post is 1!11!!!!!1!!11!!ELEVENTY!!!!11
There! Ban me for life ;-)
Posted by: Coturnix | March 22, 2009 1:23 AM
All fixed. Fuck you, Coturnix.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 22, 2009 1:33 AM
The first link in section 2 (to DrugMonkey) is still broken. And it's fucking important!
Gibbering fuckwittitude, indeed.
Posted by: Clark 'Anonymous' Hoyt | March 22, 2009 1:53 AM
Fixed, demanding fucks.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 22, 2009 2:10 AM
Did you chug some motherfucking Jameson? ZOMFG you're hitting it a bit too hard I-storm. Slow the fuck down, pace yourself. We need your fuckwittitude for important shit like physiomotherfuckingology scholarships.
Posted by: jc | March 22, 2009 2:23 AM
I've only just worked up the courage to comment recently.
Your blog fucking rocks!! And this is a prime example of why...ROFLOLCOPTER. I can has more?
Posted by: The Science Dilettante | March 22, 2009 3:40 AM
I am far from being a scientist (I'm in marketing for fuck's sake), but I lurk and learn here, and now I lurk, learn and laugh. Brilliant. You should do Nyquil oftener.
Posted by: Omyword! | March 22, 2009 3:57 AM
Now that Dr. Isis is outside of that annoying 18-29 bracket, I find most people within this age group disdainful. Snot-nosed, ignorant, obnoxious little things. Especially undergraduate and graduate students. I really have no time for them and, mostly, they annoy me with their constant whining, questions, hilarity, and general tech savviness.
Since Toaster has not yet aged out of the 18-29 bracket, he still finds all people aged 30-70 to be overbearing, pompous assmonkeys. Especially scientists who insist on wearing nice shoes. What a waste of shoe leather. I really have no use for them, as they insist on keeping their olfactory organs firmly lodged in each other's alimentary ends while continually spouting wasteful pontification, blowhard advice, and obscure nostalgic YouTube videos that don't matter to anyone now and never did.
Posted by: Toaster | March 22, 2009 4:41 AM
"Does this mean that I can post pornography every day and you won't censor me?" They said, "Yup!""
That is what I come here for. So far I am disappointed. You suck.
Posted by: Danimal | March 22, 2009 7:19 AM
Wait, before you ban me for life. The turtle sex counts as pornography doesn't it? Ok, maybe you don't suck.
Posted by: Danimal | March 22, 2009 7:21 AM
Hmm. Your whole post was sarcastic, wasn't it? Well, article iiv., section vii.v.x of ScienceBlogs' Code of Totally Ethical Journalistic Conduct stipulates that sarcasm is not a valid way of making a point. Even if it successfully makes said point, it's still not valid, as it demonstrates a sense of humour, irreverence, and other non-scholarly attributes. I suggest a self-ban.
Posted by: jon-eli | March 22, 2009 7:56 AM
I do hope this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Or your tender tonsils talking.
SB is not the NYT and it's not Nature. While there is a lot of science discussion, it's also science people at the juncture of science and culture. Dynamic and irreverent. Somewhat inflammatory people like PZ or Brayton are what keeps me coming here.
Posted by: jay | March 22, 2009 8:21 AM
I, for one, have very strict standards. I never pwn someone unless they're a serious asshat or i get good lulz. And, I can always back up my assertion of fuckwittitute.
Posted by: PalMD | March 22, 2009 8:47 AM
Lollercopters!!!1111!!!
Being just out of that annoying 18-30 age bracket, Mr. N3rdchik and I were wondering why so many of the young'un get their news from Colbert and Stewart, rather than the "official" upright sources. Our conclusion, snark and the assumption that they are not idiots. CC fake news is the only place where they snot-nosed are treated like intelligent peoples.
Keep up the sarcasm. Luv eleventy million!!!!!1!
Posted by: N3rdchik | March 22, 2009 9:55 AM
zomg, teh snark, it permeates! eleventy!!1!1
Posted by: leigh | March 22, 2009 10:15 AM
Hilarious as always. Love the view of your throat. I am currently blogless (sob!) but asked all of my Twitter friends to come and click for the cause. You can find me on there (if you don't totally hate Twitter; personally I view it as an opportunity to write in the "Hemingway Code" of nine-word telegraphic hotness but then I am an artist, not a scientist) as MFA_Mama. Good luck evicting the one-celled lounge lizards from your throat.
Posted by: MFA Mama | March 22, 2009 10:19 AM
I would never suggest that you suck. Not with your throat in the diseased state that it's in.
So, any bets on how long until the New York Times admits that it had no idea what the fuck it was doing when it established these half-assed rules? Or maybe just a bet on whether they'll revise the rules before or after they decide to cancel their print edition?
Posted by: Harold | March 22, 2009 10:56 AM
Blogs with no snark?!!? I don't think the NYT blogs are going to do very well...
Posted by: sarcozona | March 22, 2009 11:04 AM
Other than a very few decent investigative reporters and columnists, the NY Times sucks my fucking ass. It is swill designed to fuel the self-aggrandizement of whiny-ass motherfucking Upper West Side dumbfucks clogging the fucking sidewalks with their motherfucking double-wide monster-truck baby strollers. Fucking bougie assholes.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 22, 2009 11:23 AM
If you were all honest with yourselves, you would admit that without the annonymity you all hide behind, you wouldn't dare using the profanity you're so proud of. Cowards!!! One's hidden identity is usually the liscence to break social etiquette > to break rules of social behavior > to break ethical rules > to break the law. How far one goes only dependes on how well one's annonymity is protected.
(I'm ready for the bully and his followers to pounce on me the minute this comment appears. ;))
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 22, 2009 11:59 AM
I see that S. Rivlin subscribes to a well-known theory. I hasten to point out, though, that concealing the identity doesn't necessarily conceal the personality; I happen to be a fellow who uses moderate language in all circumstances, and I don't devolve into slobbering profanity just because the name on my posts aren't the same as the name on my driver's license. (Not that it would be hugely difficult to get from one to the other.) Conversely, Ed Brayton and PZ Myers blog under their real names, and don't hesitate to let the invective fly...
Posted by: Squiddhartha | March 22, 2009 12:38 PM
People blog anonymously for various reasons; some people are more than able to express themselves rationally even when using a pseudonym.
Posted by: Academic | March 22, 2009 12:39 PM
Academic,
Of course people can express themselve rationally when they're using pseudonyms. However, people allow themselve to use profanity freely behind a pseudonym, something they absolutely won't do when their identity is known, because they afraid that their clean, honorable, sophisticated image will be damaged.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 22, 2009 12:47 PM
FUCKLINGTON! What up, holmes? You watching some hoops today?
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 22, 2009 12:55 PM
CPP, it is halftime!
My team is still in the tournament, how about yours? Are they in or they have already lost, like your stinking Eagles?
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 22, 2009 1:11 PM
cut down or remove the political posts including creationism, republicans, democrats and most pseudo science. there's no need for what is supposed to be a collection of science blogs to have so many political posts.
and yes i do think pseudo science is politics, i really don't care for it unless your presenting research proving pseudo science is not pseudo science. there's no need to have pseudo scientific claims reiterated the majority of the time.
Posted by: annon | March 22, 2009 1:45 PM
hey ur not spozta say that or that or that
*take some vitamin C linus pauling was right*
Posted by: somebody else | March 22, 2009 2:01 PM
That was much more interesting when I (mis)read it the first time. It had a period after 'Fixed'.
Posted by: JanieBelle | March 22, 2009 2:39 PM
If the guys are fixed, demanding fucks from them will not be productive....
Posted by: Coturnix | March 22, 2009 3:00 PM
This really does illustrate the problems that some of the more stodgy media has with running blogs. They just don't get it.
If you have a blog, people understand the writing is not the product of multiple rounds of different editors and fact-checkers parsing every line. It is a personal writing space with expectations for truthiness or content based upon the individual author's reputation. The media is different. I'm not saying better, or worse, just different. I think the NYTimes is worried the paper's reputation will suffer if they have some blogger upset their unbelievably stodgy and cantankerous commenters, because there is some expectation that all content at NYTimes should read like their published copy.
If that's the expectation, then they just shouldn't bother with blogs. It's too constraining, and with my own experience with their editors trying to get a piece published, I tell you, they just don't understand the difference between the two formats.
But I think you're wrong on one point. Sb does have some standards for content. Granted, it's largely based on a higher bar for entry, but I'm willing to bet if some stealth creationist got on here they'd be sent packing. Or if someone decided to use their Sb venue to hawk magic water and penis pills. I think the unspoken (spoken?) rule is that whatever we write about we have to be honest, when we write about science we have to be competent and of course, no breaking the law with threats, slander, libel etc. for which we are liable. Those are at least the standards I hold my colleagues here to, and I can think of no exceptions in which they've failed to meet them.
Oh wait, shit, I forgot about Nisbet. Does being a total buffoon violate our standards?
Posted by: MarkH | March 22, 2009 3:11 PM
all my pseudonyms have far cleaner, more honorable, and more sophisticated reputations than my actual real-life persona ever will. so stuff that argument up yer arse and light it on fire, why dontcha?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | March 22, 2009 4:39 PM
CPP: "Fucking bougie assholes."
HahahahahahahahHAHAHA! Exactly my sentiments of the city I currently live in. They can take their Whole Foods produce and shove it!
Papa Rivlin: "Of course people can express themselve rationally when they're using pseudonyms. However, people allow themselve to use profanity freely behind a pseudonym, something they absolutely won't do when their identity is known, because they afraid that their clean, honorable, sophisticated image will be damaged."
Although I suspect you wrote that with your tongue firmly lodged in your cheek, I must note that I am just as much an irreverent, incoherent asshole in real life as I am on the Internet when I used the pseudonym Toaster Sunshine. Come to think of it, I'm actually more polite when I write on the Internet. Heh.
Posted by: Toaster | March 22, 2009 5:04 PM
Oh hell, Sol. Seriously? This is the best you have to add to this conversation? A rehash of the same old tired arguments about pseudonymity? And where is your requisite snark?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 22, 2009 5:06 PM
i have about as much verbal self-control as i do for typed words. the great thing about the typed word is that i can go back and change things before i submit my comments. once it's out your mouth, otoh, there's no going back. so no, i swear LESS on the internet than in person, pseudonym or not.
Posted by: leigh | March 22, 2009 5:28 PM
My question regarding Dr. Self-Hating Atheist is whether or not he told the SB editors when he signed on that he was going to be using "Framing Science" for announcements of his outside articles and appearances; and occasional hoots at Dawkins, Myers and Sacha Baron Cohen.
Fukkin excellent post. I am now demanding fucks. And I am fixed.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | March 22, 2009 5:36 PM
Oh, no. So now I have to delete the slug porn I posted today?
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 22, 2009 6:26 PM
Holy fuck!!?! PZ Myers reads my blog????
And yes, PZ. I expect you to clean up your act with respect to the new standards, including the slug porn. Half those cephalopods you post look like penises anyway.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 22, 2009 6:29 PM
Isn't this post a few days early?
"all people aged 30-70 to be overbearing, pompous assmonkeys" and untrustwothy sneaky cheats. You can't forget that part.
"If the guys are fixed, demanding fucks from them will not be productive...."
depends on what you think their purpose is...
(vasectomy != castration)
Posted by: becca | March 22, 2009 6:42 PM
"Fixed" in a veterinary sense of the term ;-)
Posted by: Coturnix | March 22, 2009 6:50 PM
"all my pseudonyms have far cleaner, more honorable, and more sophisticated reputations than my actual real-life persona ever will. so stuff that argument up yer arse and light it on fire, why dontcha?"
Nomen Nescio,
Since you have assumed the role of a sergeant major on this post, this is for you:
DEAR SERGEANT MAJOR
PLEASE TO ME A FAVOUR
LICK MY ARSE
AND TELL ME THE FLAVOUR
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 22, 2009 8:06 PM
Great post. That's how to deal with thorough stupidity.
I regret to inform you that you have fallen among the scientists. We have trained long and hard to call a spade a spade -- not a stick, not even a shovel, but a spade. So, we will take pains to make sure we call a demented fuckwit a demented fuckwit; would we not do so, our clean, honorable, sophisticated image would inevitably be damaged -- we'd be considered superficial, shallow thinkers with confirmation bias or something.
Real and (unlike yours) full name here; find me in Google Scholar if you doubt that.
Mwa ha ha ha haaaaah. As everyone should have expected you to know, he's got his tentacles everywhere. It's hopeless. We will all be eaten. Except your shoes, which are so uncomfortable they're painful to just look at.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 22, 2009 8:22 PM
If you were all honest with yourselves, you would admit that without the annonymity you all hide behind, you wouldn't dare using the profanity you're so proud of.
Go fuck yourself asshole. And I am not the least fucking bit anonymous.
Posted by: DuWayne | March 22, 2009 8:22 PM
I'm just waiting for the blog posting that consists of the word "fuck" repeated 8,000 times.
Posted by: Tualha | March 22, 2009 9:08 PM
I thought CPP had just such a post, but I could not find it on his blog just now.
Posted by: Coturnix | March 22, 2009 9:55 PM
Oh, OK, I found it!
Posted by: Coturnix | March 22, 2009 9:57 PM
Sorry, Becca. I'm a fucking trustworthy sneaky cheat.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | March 22, 2009 10:13 PM
Anyone besides me noticed that the list of NYT Science News on the right hand side hasn't changed in over a month. What a bunch of pathetic wankers.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | March 23, 2009 2:34 AM
@N3rdchik (#16): the innate intelligence of snarky news reporting over more traditional kinds is hashed out very well in this brilliant Wonkette post:
http://wonkette.com/405071/obama-on-rick-warren-uhh-hope
Note that Wonkette was labelled as "proudly idiotic" by David Denby in his new book Hey You Kids Get Off My Lawn: An Aging Porn Addict Says Things He Doesn't Like Are Destroying Things He Does Like, or whatever the title was.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | March 23, 2009 5:28 AM
I pretty much follow all the NY Times standards. Maybe I should be blogging with them for the Big Bucks!
Posted by: Dave Munger | March 23, 2009 9:38 AM
David Marjanović, DuWayne and anyone else whose feelings were hurt by my supposition that people prefer annonymity when doing bad things, allow me to qualify:
1. Some people do not need annonymity to do bad things.
2. Some people do not do bad things despite their annonymity.
3. Most people who do bad things would do anything to stay annonymous.
4. Most scientists do not use profanity to call a spade a stade or to get respect from their students and colleagues.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 23, 2009 10:57 AM
No bad language or snark? Good thing the NYT isn't trying to fund an award. I mean, who the fuck would visit that site more than once?
I'm also promoting a new piece of internet-speak. Instead of ROF, when somthing is really funny say PMP (peeing my pants). It's a nephrology thing.
Posted by: Pascale | March 23, 2009 11:24 AM
PMP is good. And if something is really funny, PMFP! HAHAHAHAH!!!!
Oh, and FUCKLINGTON: Do you ever stop whining? You seem to think everyone ignores your ravings because everyone other than you is a coward, a fraudster, a cheat, bad, or whatthefuckever.
Sorry, holmes, but this ain't the issue. The issue is that no one shares your tedious delusional obsessions. Now go bother your grandchildren and stop polluting interesting and useful blogs with your incessant whiny-ass drivel.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 23, 2009 12:37 PM
PhysioProfane,
Your obsession with me is something to behold. I enjoy watching you searching for me on every blog almost as much as I enjoy watching my hoop team advancing to the Sweet Sixteen. How's your team doing? Are they still in the tournament?
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 23, 2009 1:13 PM
Yeah, FUCKLINGTON. Going to the blogs of my friends and colleagues to participate in useful and enjoyable discussion, and then stepping into the piles of shit you leave all over the place is totes "searching for [you] on every blog". HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Why Isis and DrugMonkey allow you to continue to pollute their blogs with your inane contentless distracting drivel is really beyond me.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 23, 2009 1:34 PM
PhysioProfane,
"...stepping into the piles of shit..."? Why, you are the one who shits all over the blogosphere. There are countless posts where the only comments you made are directed at me or about me, nothing "useful and enjoyable" about them. As I said before, you are the typical schoolyard bully of the blogosphere. You consider Isis and DM to be your cronies and thus entice them to censor me. DM himself has no clue why your'e so obsessed with me and specifically commented on it in the past. If you were not a bully, you would simply ignore my comments if they are inane or do not fit your world view. The fact that you continue to stalk me wherever I go indicates that your'e completely obsessed with me, which could really be bad for your health. Try lisinopril or toprol.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 23, 2009 2:06 PM
PP and DM are totes my cronies. Some might even call us "cliquish."
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 23, 2009 4:53 PM
"Or if someone decided to use their Sb venue to hawk magic water and penis pills."
Ooh! Ooh! I want someone to start doing that. C'mon, Sciblings!
& Nice rant, Sister Isis. I will direct the next person to propose "a science blog code of ethics" here straightaway, since you have already done all the work!
Posted by: bioephemera | March 23, 2009 7:17 PM
Hey BioE, I once advocated studying a male enhancement product on my blog and tried to get some free samples.
Oddly enough, I still got asked to join the SkienzBlogz.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 23, 2009 8:40 PM
...
What a waste of time skimming this comment thread was.
I wonder if NYT has standards for their commenters..??
Now that would be fucking progress to emulate here...
...tom...
.
Posted by: ...tom... | March 24, 2009 2:44 AM
You didn't make that supposition. You loudly and clearly made the inverse supposition: that people who prefer anonymity are doing bad things.
I'm not even trying to get your respect. Respect isn't necessary for a discussion. Hey, right now I'm having one on Pharyngula with an incredibly cowardish YEC whom I've been trying for, so far, one thousand three hundred comments to read this little article... do you really think I've got any respect for him?
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 24, 2009 8:12 AM
you rule
Posted by: tbell | March 24, 2009 2:03 PM
I love you too, tbell!
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 24, 2009 2:07 PM