Mostly moving. . .

Along with Sarah Werning and Shaena Montanari, I have a new blog over at the PLOS blogs network. We're The Integrative Paleontologists - go check it out! For the most part, I'm going to be moving my activity over that-away from here on out. . .the occasional post outside the domain of TIPs will still land here, though.

ScienceOnline2012 - Parting Thoughts

My thoughts on Days 2 and 3 of ScienceOnline2012 are found elsewhere - here I sum up some other impressions.

Twitter at ScienceOnline
This is the first time I've actively tweeted through an entire meeting, and found it to be a worthwhile addition. It was cool to see what other folks in my sessions were thinking (at times it was like passing notes in class), and also nice to be able to follow the sessions in other rooms. Over 300 active users participated (on and off-site), and over 17,000 tweets discussed the meeting (see this cool summary map)! It's this broad participation that took Twitter from just being a small piece of the meeting to an essential component - an important observation for groups like Society of Vertebrate Paleontology that might want to acknowledge (or even encourage) Twitter.

Some thoughts on the state of blogging
One perception I have after ScienceOnline 2012 is that blogging - as an activity and as a medium of communication - seems to have reached a relatively mature state. Sure, there are incremental advances and changes, but by and large I don't really get the sense that there is much substantively new going on (other than new people joining the blogging fold on occasion). This is somewhat reflected by the blogging-relevant sessions at ScienceOnline2012 - they are much the same kind of stuff you might have seen at ScienceOnline 2010, or 2009, or 2011. Topics like getting students involved in blogging, increasing acceptance of blogging in academia, use of images on blogs, etc., are important but really not much advanced beyond where we were a few years ago. [brief note - this should not be interpreted as me saying that I think things are just OK as they are - in fact, it is a rather sad thing that some of these issues are still issues!]

I don't mean this as a criticism, but just a state of how things are. In fact, stability is partly a good thing in that someone new to the world of blogging can jump in with clear role models, expectations, and pathways to success (whatever success may be). Many of the broad principles have been laid out, and now we're working on refining the details. Some big issues do remain (we can always increase the acceptance of quality blogging for academic career advancement, for instance), but many of these will probably just require the imperceptible cultural shifts that happen over time.

Some thoughts on the state of online science
Perhaps it just reflects my own intellectual trajectory, but it seems like we're approaching some measure of stability for many of the old issues in science  communication. Open access - important, but not really novel anymore. Blogging - same thing. Social media - ditto. As all of these trends started, I took a wait-and-see approach before engaging myself. As such, I have missed out on getting in at the very, very beginning of some trends, but have also avoided wasting time with trends that haven't much gone anywhere or have fizzled out (e.g., SecondLife and GoogleWave, to name just two). Based on my attendance at ScienceOnline 2012, the areas to watch include:

• Crowdfunding: Small donations can add up to decent funding for a focused project, and present unique outreach opportunities. In a field of shoestring budgets like paleontology, I see crowdfunding as a potentially important new trend.
• Article-level metrics and data set archival and citation: I've tied these two topics together because they reflect a major advance beyond the old journal-level metrics like Impact Factor. Neither topic is completely new, but I saw plenty of new tools at ScienceOnline that may move the discussions and usage of these metrics forward. Furthermore, there is still a long way to go for community buy-in.

There may indeed be some major issues to watch in science art or writing that I have missed because I'm not really plugged in to those communities, so please comment if there is something I missed!

ScienceOnline2012 - Day 3

In Day 3 of ScienceOnline 2012 (my second day), we had a fun mix of split sessions and common gatherings. Areas of interest for me included:

• Students as Messengers of Science: This discussion focused on how to engage high school and college students in science blogging. There are no easy solutions, but there were some tips to get them started. In particular, planning is key. What is the goal? Who are the potential readers? 
• Why the Resistance to Science Blogging? This session was pretty much as advertised. Unfortunately, there was little new here - yes, there are downsides to putting yourself out there on a blog, but for the most part it seems like it will just take slow attrition of the skeptics to normalize blogging for non-blogging scientists. Same issues as in 2011, 2010, 2009. . .but little in the way of new solutions. One good piece of advice, though: should we put blogging activity on our CV, and if so how? In many cases, there are impactful ways to describe this activity - online outreach editor, web editor, etc. These or similar terms can be honest, accurate descriptors that are more positive for those who might be instinctively averse to the word "blog."
• Raising Money for Your Science and Journalism with Crowd Funding: This session filled in many of the details related to yesterday's demo - and was quite interesting. One clear worry is that crowd funding in science could be hijacked by "stodgy" forces that try to impose NSF-style limitations on the crowdfunding community (e.g., layers of vetting by experts, etc. - in fact, I think the odds are quite good that someone will un-ironically submit an NSF proposal in the near future to put together a service to validate and serve as a clearinghouse for crowdfunding science). This could have the chilling effect of squeezing out small players in favor of big institutions that are already comparatively well-funded. Vigilance is required - and the situation will doubtlessly change rapidly over the next few years. Either way, it has cool potential.
• CyberScreen Science Film Festival: Again, what the label says. I'm hoping to find a link to a list of the films - there were some really excellent ones.
• Closing Plenary Panel on Scientist/Journalist Relations: This isn't a new topic (see here for one recent post), and is getting a little tiresome for many. Lots of discussion, little movement from either side. My thought is that the real problem is not with the journalists or scientists at ScienceOnline, but the reporters who aren't science specialists, or who just copy press releases, or who throw stuff together without contacting relevant scientists.

Next. . .parting thoughts.

Welcome A New Blogging Paleontologist!

I am pleased to note that my colleague, friend, and fellow ceratopsian fan Scott Sampson has just started up his own blog, "The Whirlpool of Life."

For those of you who only know him as a paleontological researcher, Scott is also a very skilled communicator and educator. The past few months have seen some tremendous successes in that regard - first, his on-screen and behind-the-scenes role with the new PBS kids' show Dinosaur Train, and second, his just-published book Dinosaur Odyssey.

Scott has a special interest in popularizing issues of science education, evolution, sustainability, and paleontology, all of which promise to be themes on the new blog. This will be a good one to add to your regular reading list!

Scott Sampson with an extinct friend.

Cool New Paleo Project

Darren Tanke, a technician at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology, is probably one of the most knowledgeable people around when it comes to the history of paleontology in Alberta. I've known Darren for a number of years (and have co-authored several papers with him, including this one), and his enthusiasm for paleo lore is quite infectious. Stick around him for an hour or two, and you'll learn about the clues contained within quarry trash. . .discarded newspapers, plaster bits, sardine tins, and bottles are invaluable for identifying the original excavators of otherwise anonymous quarries. Many early paleontologists only kept the most minimal documentation, but thanks to Darren and his colleagues we now know the exact stratigraphic position for many important specimens from Dinosaur Provincial Park. This unglamorous service, a meld of archaeology, history, and paleontology, has done wonders for clarifying our understanding of Cretaceous ecosystems.

In the old days, vehicle access to places like Dinosaur Provincial Park was pretty darned difficult. In fact, many of the first expeditions were by boat, floating down the Red Deer River. Life is much easier for fossil collectors now. . .but in honor of these early expeditions, Darren is going to collect by boat once again! The Tyrrell's master carpenter, Perry Schopff, is presently working to recreate one of the AMNH's original scows. And come next summer, Darren and his crew of paleontologists will float in the footsteps of legends such as Barnum Brown - exactly 100 years after the first floating expedition.

In the spirit of open science, Darren and friends have put together a blog and Facebook group (search for "Dinosaur Hunting by Boat in Alberta, Canada") with all of the latest photos and updates. Here's to open science, and a successful field season in 2010!

The End of the Internet Mailing List? Part III

In the previous two posts of this series, I discussed the past, present, and future of the internet mailing list--along with the other new technologies jostling for position in the fray. In this final post of the series, I want to address the role of the blog in scientific discourse. What does it bring to the table? What are its drawbacks?

The Blog
As a case study, let's consider the case of Ida (more properly known as Darwinius masillae). This little primate, announced in the open access publication PLoS ONE and accompanied by a media juggernaut of unprecedented proportions, grabbed the world's attention (including mine). Every corner of the Internet, from the mailing lists to the blogs to the news sites to the home page of Google, was buzzing.

From the nearly the start, people picked up on something unsatisfactory with the story. Whether it was the hype, the conclusions of the paper, or the validity of the name, nearly everyone had an opinion. Within minutes, wonderfully cogent critiques were presented - largely in the blogosphere (see Brian Switek's blog carnival at Laelaps for the cream of the crop). Sure, there was some back-and-forth on VRTPALEO and various other mailing lists, and certainly some (often snide) comments on the social networks, but the blogs were where the real action was!

As a prime example, let's look at the problem of the validity of the name "Darwinius". By the standards of the bean counters at the ICZN, it wasn't valid as originally published! A commenter (among others throughout the Internet) at Carl Zimmer's The Loom really brought the issue front and center, resulting in extensive discussion by a number of professional paleontologists, and two widely read follow-up posts. Perhaps in part due to this widespread exposure, the issue was very, very quickly resolved. Again--some of the mailing lists were discussing this, but the "good stuff" was in the blogosphere.

What is it about blogs that contribute to this phenomenon? To start superficially, blogs are attractive. With just an internet connection and a laptop, pretty much anyone can create a profesionally-appearing, attractive layout with relevant graphics and links. The plain-text mailing lists just don't allow this.

Next, blogs allow a forum for knowledgeable people to speak and be heard. Degreed professionals--such as the guys at SV-POW!--and talented science writers--I'll pick on Brian Switek again as a paleontological example--do a tremendous job of presenting complicated information to the public and professional communities. This sort of commentary and presentation just wouldn't be found at Facebook or a mailing list--it's outside their scopes. Of course, this is a double-edged sword--some bloggers tend towards grandstanding and pandering to the fanbase at the expense of real content. In part, this is a function of the medium--a blog belongs to an individual (or a few individuals), and is in some ways intended to communicate more by decree than by conversation. Whether this is a good thing or not largely depends upon the blog.

This aside, the comment threads are another important part of the blogosphere. As an excellent example, check out the exchange on the recently-published primate Ganlea. Particularly in cases where the threads are of a manageable size, people pay attention. Real discussion is happening there. But, this does tend to fall apart in blogs that are too big. . .

So what is the big difference of a blog's comments from a typical mailing list? The comment threads are more readily accessible to the public - you don't need to access some text-only or subscriber-only archives. The thread of conversation is right there with the conversation starter. And wow, can these comment threads be enlightening!

Can It Last?
I would argue that the real on-line conversation about science has moved to the blogs. But is this sustainable? Only time will tell. Just two years ago, there was only a fraction of the number of blogs we have today. As the medium expands, it is getting tougher and tougher to keep on top of things. I predict that we're going to see more niche blogs developing, too. With so many good "general paleontology" blogs out there, it's going to be more appealing to specialize in topics like the Triassic, or sauropod vertebrae, or aquatic amniotes. We may very well see a fragmentation of the blog audience as a consequence, with a few heavy hitters getting consistent widespread pageviews, and everyone else catering to a more niche audience. Who knows what the future will bring?

The End of the Internet Mailing List? Part II

In my previous post, I outlined the (in my opinion) glory days and slow change (some might even say decline) of email-based lists such as the Dinosaur Mailing List. That post ended with a question - what happened?

What Happened to Mailing Lists?
In short, the Internet matured. 10 or 15 years ago, mailing lists were really the only game in town (aside from a handful of themed chat rooms). If you were a dinosaur fan, you joined the Dinosaur Mailing List. Today, you can choose between the DML, various internet forums, social networks, and blogs. Simultaneously, the user community has exploded. Literally hundreds--and perhaps even thousands--of folks follow, comment, and create paleo content on the web every day. The conversation has not only moved, it has expanded into a variety of niches.

In the rest of this post, and the next post, I'll focus on two technologies in particular: social networking and blogs.

Social Networking and the Paleontologist
Over the past year or two, I have found that I get much of my informal news and gossip from Facebook. In fact, Facebook is the primary method of communication that I have with some colleagues, even above email. Facebook is quick, easy, and allows for real-time chat. Over the past few weeks, I learned nearly immediately who had SVP abstracts accepted and rejected, and often get up-to-the-minute reports of manuscript acceptances, fieldwork successes (and failures), and other details from status postings. At its best, Facebook provides a level of casual (sometimes too casual) interaction with many of my far-flung colleagues on a daily basis - a finger on the pulse of the community. The informal nature of Facebook and similar sites mean that, for now, it probably won't replace mailing lists for announcement of new papers or serious discussion. But, social networking sites certainly offer a fun and informative way to keep in touch with other paleo types.

Thoughts? Alternative Perspectives?

Coming up. . .Blogging and the Paleontological Community

The End of the Internet Mailing List?

No doubt, the internet has changed the way we do paleontology. Email allows faster collaborations among workers at widespread institutions, and sometimes continents. Open access journals and PDFs from "closed access" publications allow virtually instantaneous distribution of peer reviewed research. And, internet mailing lists, forums, social networking sites, and blogs allow a whole new dimension of discussion and dissemination of research results.

The role of the latter venues has had no small level of controversy, ever since their beginnings. Some professionals grumbled over the way any person with an internet connection could flood mailing lists with intellectual garbage. In relatively rare cases, this has happened. Some avocational and non-degreed paleontologists grumbled over real and perceived slights from the "Ivory Tower." This too on occasion has happened, but rather rarely (despite frequent accusations from some quarters). Despite these misgivings, the new modes of scientific communication and discourse are here to stay. But, like all new technologies, the situation is evolving rapidly.

As someone who remembers the days before the Internet, and during the early days of Internet access (for me, beginning around 1997 when the first connections were available at my school), it has been very interesting to follow (and participate in) the trends on-line. In this series of posts, I'll be addressing the past, present, and future of informal electronic communication. This is part of a broader discussion that has been happening throughout the blogosphere recently, particularly at SVP-POW!

The Glory Days of the Internet Mailing List
One of the earliest thrills in my initial exploration of the internet was something called the "Dinosaur Mailing List." Here was a fantastic place where seemingly unfettered discussion of all things dinosaurian took place. New discoveries - including the first inklings of amazing feathered(!) theropods from China - were announced on a seemingly daily basis. Reports from SVP filtered out, and were eagerly read by those of us who couldn't attend the meetings. Acknowledged experts--such as Tom Holtz, Jim Farlow, Darren Tanke, and Ralph Chapman--rubbed elbows and shared discussions with neophytes, fans, and future paleontologists alike. The DML was the place to be for anyone interested in dinosaur paleontology, at any level. You just had to sign up, in order to receive a steady stream of interesting and insightful communications direct to your email inbox.

In the 12 years that I have belonged to the DML, something has changed. The change has been subtle, slow, and creeping, but it has certainly been happening. Fewer professionals are making fewer postings (although many still follow the list). I find myself skipping or deleting 95 percent of the list's messages. Although there are some delightful exceptions, less real scientific discussion is happening here (beyond the perennial topics of the origins of bird flight and theropod systematics). I have seen similar shifts on other mailing lists and internet forums that I belong to, so it is not limited strictly to the DML, nor is it the fault of the hard-working moderaters. What, then, has happened?

Coming Up. . .Shifting Sands of Communication

What Place Do Blogs Have in Science?

While I'm currently on vacation, I've also been thinking hard about a "major" upcoming post on the role of blogs in scientific discourse. Through a very fortuitous bit of serendipity, SV-POW! has a stimulating post and discussion going on about aspects of this very topic. Check it out, and look back here next week for my own contribution to the fray.

Blogroll Updated

I just updated my blogroll, and have added a few new paleo-relevant links. In particular, I'd like to call attention to Jeffrey Martz's "Paleo Errata." The first few postings are very much in the spirit of my own blog, and offer some excellent advice to those hapless folks considering a career in paleontology. Go check it out!