Archive for the 'social media' category

Reading Diary: Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy by Gabriella Coleman and This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things by Whitney Phillips

Gabriella Coleman's Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous is largely a laudatory history of the Anonymous hacker activist movement with some anthropological and political analysis. Whitney Phillips' This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture on the other hand, is much more geared towards an analytical and philosophical analysis of past and present (and even future) of how online trolling relates to contemporary culture.

Neither book is perfect, and both tend to falter where it comes to how closely the author identifies with the community being analysed, but both are very solid entries into two very new areas of study.

The best parts of Coleman's book is the detailed description and account of the Anonymous movement/phenomenon. For sure, there are numerous misconceptions about Anonymous, some understandable since the movement itself is so diffuse and decentralized, some which seem to be more a case of willful misconceptions on the part of media and political classes. Coleman's step by step history of many of the various Anon campaigns -- like the anti-Mormon church one, for example -- really clarify that there is no one Anon, just a loose aggregation of fellow travelers. There was some central control at the beginning but as becomes clear, that also began to be harder to enforce as the movement gained in size and popularity. Coleman's anthropological and ethnographic approach also served to humanize the movement. What might have been a simplistic "angry dudes in their parent's basements" we see in mainstream media was complicated and clarified by Coleman, both in terms of demographics and motivation.

On the other hand, the way she embedded herself in Anon communities and built personal relationships with activists -- and her own identification with the kind of activism they were doing -- sometimes left me with the feeling that she could have been a bit more detached in how she approached the ethical and legal implications of how Anon operated. There were a couple of spots where I thought she might dive into those sorts of issues at the end of a chapter or section, but then the story just continued on as before. She certainly deals with a lot of those sorts of issues at the end of the book, and deals with them fairly well, but dealing with those sorts of issues as they arise would have been better.

That said, overall I quite enjoyed the book and learned a lot about a topic I thought I already knew a fair bit about. There were some parts that could have been edited a bit for length, but that's a small complaint. I would recommend this book for any academic or public library collection that deals with the social aspects of technology or the interface of technology and politics.

By contrast, Whitney Phillips' book This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture could have suffered from the same ills as the Coleman book but it didn't. In fact, a recurring theme in the book is Whitney's struggles to distance herself from her anthropological/ethnographic subjects and not be tempted to identify with them. Is she completely successful in distancing herself from the trolls, of not identifying herself and sympathizing with them even a little bit? Not completely, but she is very aware of the temptation, especially as it relates to some trolling tendencies in her own family.

Phillips' main point is the book can be summarized as this: "Trolls are asshats. But they way they are asshats and how their asshatery manifests itself in our media-drenched contemporary society is useful for understanding that society." It's clear that she has no love for trolls but rather seeks to understand them as a way of understanding the society they reflect. And while it would be nice to think that the reflection is a carnival mirror reflection, one that is untrue or exaggerated, Phillips I think really wants us all to understand that what trolls represent in a genuine and authentic part of our society. As ugly as that reflection is, it's more true than we would like to acknowledge.

Trolls are the symptoms of a mean, cruel, misogynistic, racist, exploitative society, not the disease itself. And while treating the symptoms is unquestionably important, the underlying disease is even more important to recognize.

I have no hesitation recommending this book to all libraries that collect in technology and society. Any academic library would find this useful and probably most public libraries as well. Even high school libraries could find this a useful addition.

Coleman, Gabriella. Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous. New York: Verso, 2014. 464pp. ISBN-13: 978-1781685839

Phillips, Whitney. This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture. Boston: MIT Press, 2015. 251pp. ISBN-13: 978-0262028943

No responses yet

Reading Diary: Managing Chaos: Digital Governance by Design by Lisa Welchman

What is digital governance in the first place?
Digital governance is a discipline that focuses on establishing clear accountability for digital strategy, policy, and standards. A digital governance framework, when effectively designed and implemented, helps to streamline digital development and dampen debates around digital channel “ownership.”
-- From the Managing Chaos: Digital Governance by Design website.

Intellectual autonomy and stubbornness of staff
-- From the index, Managing Chaos: Digital Governance by Design, p. 229

Time to take a little medicine! All those digital projects, all those digital projects teams, all those digital projects strategies. Libraries, academic libraries, we know them well, don't we.

Chaos is a good word. Lots of stakeholders, limited resources, competing priorities. Governance is a good word too, for libraries, as it tends to imply less a top-down, less hierarchical, more collegial way of making decisions. And when it comes to deciding how an organization should make decisions about their digital presence, finding a way to makes those decisions more effectively is very important.

Which is exactly what Managing Chaos: Digital Governance by Design by Lisa Welchman is about -- how to set up internal structures that will help organizations make decisions about digital strategies, policies and standards. Note that the book isn't about what decisions to make or even really how to organize the decision-making process. It's about what structures can facilitate and inform and govern a decision-making process that results in strategies, policies and standards.

It's that twice-removed aspect that is both the book's greatest strength and the source of some frustrations as well.

It's a strength because it provides a level of abstraction between the content of the decisions and the process of deciding that can take a bit of heat out of the whole thing. Frustrating because the occasional lack of grounding in reality of all the talk of policies and whatnot make it hard to see how it all ties back to reality. The endless talk of process this and committee that is sometimes like grasping at smoke. There are fairly detailed case studies at the end, but perhaps some of that content should have been distributed a little better up front -- or at least some more real world examples.

Building a governance structure where none existed before or overlaying one on an existing chaotic situation are challenging tasks to say the least. Basically it requires defining the appropriate structures and then figuring out how to overlay those bureaucratic structures on an organization that needs it but may not realize or recognize it needs it.

And Welchman does a terrific job of going through how to define those processes and even how to talk about implementing them. She's very deliberate and patient, setting everything out in words and charts, step by step, how to figure out who defines, who has input, who has final authority. And the things we're talking about deciding about (see how circular and vague and smokey this gets...)?

Digital strategies, digital policies, digital standards. And not in any concrete way, of course, but as those higher-level abstractions that will be different for every industry or sector and which will be different for each organization within those industries.

And yes, higher education is one of the sectors that get a case study at the end. The example is a university's central web team in charge of managing and integrating the school's web presence across all the various units. (The case studies are anonymized versions of experiences in her own consulting practice.)

Governance can be a good word for higher education, of course. But the challenge in the modern higher education landscape is distinguishing between governance and "governance" or governance-washing. Setting up a digital governance strategy for institutions that are as decentralized and multi-faceted as universities is doubly challenging. What's being governed in digital strategy anyways? Just marketing and communication? Data and scholarship resources? MOOCs and online education? Faculty and departmental web-presences? To what degree is the marketing and communications tail wagging the educational and research mission dog? Someone has to keep an eye on what universities are really for -- teaching and research. And not marketing. We don't have universities so we can market them -- as the tail sometimes seems to think.

Welchman trods this fine line not always successfully in the higher ed case study. Too much emphasis on top down from the senior admin and provost and not enough grassroots bottom up from faculty, staff and -- yes -- students. For governance to be legitimate in a higher education environment, the decision-making needs to flow upward, not downward, as inconvenient and frustrating as that can seem sometimes on the inside. The digital part of the university serves the teaching and research mission of the university, not the other way around. Autonomy and stubbornness are virtues, not inconveniences to getting input on long, tortuous processes.

Overall, this is a very good book, if a little dry and disruption business web hallelujah jargony at times. The digital/web teams are perhaps too often portrayed as the misunderstood heroes of the various tales rather than part of complex organizational ecosystems where heroes and villains don't really exist. References to "disruption" and "digital natives" and "digital campus" don't necessarily inspire complete confidence, but there is also an incredible amount of wisdom here when it comes to creating collegial governance. Your mileage may vary, but it's hard to imagine that anyone involved in digital projects at any level won't find something here to help them navigate creating better processes at their institutions.

This book belongs in any library/information science, technology or business library collection in academia. Probably only quite large public library systems would find an audience for this book, but branches in technology hub neighbourhoods should probably put a copy in their window display. Also, buy a copy for everyone on your digital team, up and down the hierarchy all the way to the CIO.

Welchman, Lisa. Managing Chaos: Digital Governance by Design. Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media, 2015. 248pp. ISBN-13: 978-1933820880

No responses yet

Reading Diary: Information Doesn't Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age by Cory Doctorow

While I was reading Cory Doctorow's Information Doesn't Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age, I was reminded of a quote of his that I blogged about a few years ago:

The people in Makers experience a world in which technology giveth and taketh away. They live through the fallacy of the record and movie industries: the idea that technology will go just far enough to help them and then stop. That’s totally not what happens. technology joes that far and them keeps on going. It’s a cycle of booms and busts. There are some lovely things about when you’re riding the wave and some scary things.

The Information Revolution is not bloodless. There’s plenty to like about the pre-Information era and a lot of that will go away. We can mourn it in the same way we mourn the knife sharpener who walked down the road with his wheel, the same way we mourn the passing of the lace tatter and all the other jobs that were made obsolete by one kind of technology or another. But we can mourn it without apologizing for the future that disrupted it.

(Doctorow, C. (2009, November). Cory Doctorow: Riding the wave. Locus, 63(5), 7, 60-61.)

Which is basically what IDWTBF is about -- how to make the bloody information revolution a bit less painful for creative artists trying to make a living is a radically different economic and social environment. But Doctorow isn't making suggestions is a "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss," Animal Farmish "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." kind of way. He's no fan of the big record companies or mega-publishers that want to figure out how to redirect new forms of revenue streams to old-fashioned intermediaries. Doctorow is trying to figure out how creative artists can succeed on their own terms, even if those terms end up requiring the support of those very intermediaries. He doesn't hate the "dinosaurs," he just wants to put the decision-making power where it belongs, with the creators.

Of course, he's a realist too, and doesn't try and convince anybody that the new world order is universally delivering riches to everyone who embraces it. On the contrary, he's quite blunt that almost everyone who wants to make a living as a creative artist will fail to do so. Just as it has pretty well always been. It's hard work, that requires a mixture of grit, luck and drive as well as the embracing of some new skill sets.

Doctorow presents his three laws of the Internet age, for figuring out how to succeed after the revolution:

  1. Any time someone puts a lock on something that belongs to you and won't give you the key, that lock isn't there for your benefit.
  2. Fame won't make you rich, but you can't get paid without it.
  3. Information doesn't want to be free, people do.

I won't go into too much detail with what the various laws entail, but basically what Doctorow is saying is that DRM ultimately works against the best interests of the creator by making it harder for the consumers of culture to own their cultural products in the way that makes the most sense for them. Why pay for something you don't really own, after all. The next challenge is recognizing that the creator's biggest challenge is overcoming obscurity, not defeating piracy. Creators shouldn't be blind to the implications of piracy but should spend more time making sure their potential audiences know who they are and what they have to offer and most of all, how consumers can support the creators financially. And finally, what do people want from the Web? They want to use it as openly and freely as possible. Getting in the way of that desire -- which ultimately can't be thwarted in any meaningful way anyways -- doesn't do anybody any good. Embrace the freedom and the only way to succeed rather than a self-fulfilling guarantee of failure.

Which is brutal, of course, because most creators will fail at making a living at their art, as it was always been. But Doctorow's advice would be to embrace his laws as a way of at least giving yourself the best show at success. Engage and delight your audience, that's the key.

This is a short book, full of sharp shocks. I would recommend it to everyone who either produces or consumes culture in the modern world. Which is just about everyone! Did I agree with everything? Not really. Doctorow is maybe a bit cavalier about what we loose in new business models. Thinking of the knife sharpener in the quote above, it's still better to get your knife sharpened than to leave them dull or just treat cheap knives as disposable. Or even to not need knives anymore because you don't ever prepare your own food. Sometimes old ways and old things are worth fighting for, as tough and useless as that fight might end up being. After all, if you don't fight back and resist you can be sure you'll lose. And I'm sure other readers will pick other bits to argue or dispute. Which is one of the pleasures of the book in a way. Doctorow is pretty confident in his opinions, and that provocation can a healthy exercise. He's thought these things through pretty thoroughly over the course of many years and many books and articles, after all, so spotting flaws is a challenge.

In the end, this is a worthwhile read, one that would benefit pretty well any library.

Doctorow, Cory. Information Doesn't Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age. San Francisco: McSweeney's, 2014. 162pp. ISBN-13: 978-1940450285

One response so far

Digital Canada 150: Wasted opportunity

As part of the celebrations for Canada's upcomming 150th birthday, the Canadian federal government has released its Digital Canada 150 strategy paper, and while it`s not all bad, at the same time there is not an awful lot to recommend it. Especially considering it was four years in the making.

My sense is that its main purpose is for the Harper Conservative government to be able to say it has a digital strategy during the next election campaign in 2015. The most telling thing about the strategy, of course, is which department it originated in: Industry Canada. Not Culture, not Heritage, not Science and Technology. Industry. This is all about advancing the government's economy at all and any costs agenda and it really shows that on every page.

I'm not going to get into too much detail on my critique of the paper at this point in time as that will be forthcoming, but I do want to point out a few of the most salient items on the science side of things.

First of all, they do have an appropriate nod to the Tri-Agency Draft Open Access Policy in the Digital Government section, "We will develop Open Science to facilitate open access to the publications and related data resulting from federally funded research." But the wording is so tortured and bizarre that I'm left to wonder if anyone connected with science or the Tri-Agencies had any input into the strategy at all. Open Science, of course, is the broader category that OA falls under. But the Tri-Agency draft policy doesn't mention the broader goal of open science at all, so I wonder if they just pasted that in to make it sound better. The draft policy only specifies Open Data for CIHR funded research rather than for all federally funded research which is what the strategy implies.

Now if they'd wanted to make the broader case for Open Science in the strategy, I think it might have been hidden in there already among all the other stuff about open government data and open data in general, but they missed the opportunity and ended up tripping over their own two feet. And that is probably because they didn't see the science case for Open Science, only the business case, resulting the threads getting scattered around the rest of the document. Which is representative of the rest of the document as well -- kind of scattershot.

(And don't get me started on the how none of this squares with how the government has treated science, libraries, the census...)

The second thing I'd like to point out is that they really emphasize the transformation of the NRC into an industry concierge service in the Economic Opportunities section, signalling even further that they aren't really interested in basic research at all into what a Digital Canada could be at its 150th birthday, but rather how to use the strategy to advance their narrow goals, mostly about puffing up their economic record for the next election campaign. It's all about serving industry, not the broader public interest.

In any case, here's a sampling of the commentary on the document around the web. It's mostly cautious-to-negative but quite a bit of it is positive, especially from industry groups. I`m thinking that is because they want to curry the government`s favour over the next couple of years so don`t want to rock the boat. After all, the document is much more about their needs rather than the needs of Canadians as a whole.

Michael Geist's commentaries are perhaps the most on point overall. Being a science fiction fan, I do also like this quote from Peter Nowak:

As a whole, there is one other way in which the Digital Canada 150 is similar to Star Wars. George Lucas at least had the good sense to sell Star Wars to Disney and allow someone else to have a crack at producing something that fans might be able to appreciate. With the thoroughly lacklustre digital strategy taking four years and three different industry ministers to produce, it’s looking increasingly clear that this is not the government to take Canada forward into a digital future. Observers interested in such matters can’t be faulted for hoping that someone else takes up this task.


As usual, if I've missed any commentary that you think I should include, please include it in the comments or let me know by email at jdupuis at yorku dot ca.

5 responses so far

Welcome to Yet Another Science Blogging Community: Popular Science Blog Network

Oct 08 2013 Published by under blogging, scholarly publishing, social media

Yes, another science blogging community among the many and yet another where an established print magazine enhances its online presence with a blogging network. And a bit more shuffling of the chairs on the deck as people with established blogs switch places or even some people start up whole new blogging personas.

The Popular Science Blogging Network!

Here's the welcome post and the list of blogs

Welcome To The Popular Science Blog Network

Today we’re unveiling 13 new blogs on, each one home to a notable writer covering a specific area of innovation. We live in an era when science and technology have made their way into every corner of our lives, from the baby’s crib to the battlefield, and we’ve asked these writers to be your reliable voice of analysis.

Zero Moment: Erik Sofge on our robot future
Techtiles: Emma Barker on the science behind the clothes and gadgets we wear
Biohackers: Daniel Grushkin and others on bathtub genomicists and tissue tweakers
Ignition!: Peter Madsen on the world of amateur space exploration
Our Modern Plagues: Brooke Borel on the latest contagions and infestations, and the science of fighting them
LadyBits: Arikia Millikan and others on gender and feminism in science and technology
Boxplot: Maki Naro on science through the medium of graphic narrative
Rotorhead: Chelsea Sexton on the green rebirth of the automobile and other forms of transportation
Vintage Space: Amy Shira Teitel on the history of space exploration
Under the Microscope: Jason Tetro on microbiology and the germs that define us
Unpopular Science: Rebecca Watson on the area just beyond the fringe of science
KinderLab: Kate Gammon on the science of childhood development
Eek Squad: Rebecca Boyle on creepy animals

A couple weeks before launching this network, we announced a new no-comments policy on the site. It was the result of a combination of factors: a rising tide of unpleasant comments, a growing body of evidence that those unpleasant comments, left unchecked, can have a disastrous effect on scientific comprehension, and a lack of resources to properly moderate the comments to ensure that the resulting discussion is productive. Here, we’re giving our bloggers the option of turning comments on for individual posts, and asking them to actively lead the discussion. We hope you’ll take part.

Jacob Ward is the editor-in-chief of Popular Science.

No responses yet

Some #AltMetrics for a blog post on Canadian science policy

On May 20th, 2013 I published my most popular post ever. It was The Canadian War on Science: A long, unexaggerated, devastating chronological indictment. In it, I chronicled at some considerable length the various anti-science measures by the current Canadian Conservative government. The chronological aspect was particularly interesting as you could see the ramping up since the 2011 election where the Conservatives won a majority government after two consecutive minority Conservative governments.

As an exercise in alt-metrics (and here), I thought I would share some of the reactions and impact this post has generated. It's certainly been a bit of a ride for me. I have to admit to being very pleased with the reaction. So much so, it's gotten me to think more deeply about this slightly unhinged chronological listing thing that I do and perhaps it's relationship to higher principles in librarianship. Maybe it's a thing. More on this in the weeks and months to come as I further process and think about this particular activity and how it manifests in my practice of librarianship.

But perhaps the most compelling reason to do this post is very simple. To demonstrate that a blog post can raise awareness, that it can have some kind of impact in the real world, that it can be a lightning rod for participation and a space to pool the collective intelligence of the wider community to increase everyone's knowledge.

For example, the response in the comments was so overwhelming that within a week I was able to update the post, adding over 30 items to my initial 70 or so. Not only were suggestions made in the comments, I received numerous emails with suggestions, some from people who were obviously uncomfortable commenting in public. The incredible response also prompted me on May 23 to update the post with a Creative Commons Zero waiver, essentially waiving all copyright to the post. This facilitated 12 reprints of all or part of my chronology, all of which are indicated below.

As I said, my most popular post ever. In terms of page views, probably by an order of magnitude. My typical post gets on the order of hundreds of page views. A particularly popular post on the order of a few thousand. This one is approaching 45,000.

Some metrics (as at July 9, 2013):

  • 43,137 page views (using Google Analytics)
  • 53 links/mentions from other sources (see below)
  • 12 re-postings of all or part of the original post
  • 128 comments or trackbacks on the blog post itself
  • 9900 (approx) Facebook likes
  • 1600 (approx) Twitter mentions
  • 255 Google+ +1's

For the page views, I thought I'd break down some of the traffic sources:

  • Facebook: 17687
  • Slashdot: 8861
  • Twitter: 3633
  • Boing Boing: 3311
  • Stumbleupon: 2565
  • reddit: 727
  • Slate: 555
  • Google+: 305

The post is still getting 40-60 additional page views every day.

So, here's the list of all the mentions/links for my post. And note where some of these links come from -- pretty cool, really, to get linked from some of these places.

* Complete or partial reposts of my list.

A few discussion forums/news sites such as Newsana,, Center for Inquiry,

A few undated listings of the post: CSWA Let Scientists Speak, CAUT Get Science Right, 350 or Bust.

A few key tweets of the many thousands:

Thanks to everyone who tweeted, retweeted, posted, interviewed and everything else. Thanks for helping me spread the word.

Of course, if you know of any links or other metric-y stuff I might include here, please let me know. It's worth noting that there were a few media and other interviews that I did thanks to the commotion caused by this post that haven't yet resulted in anything visible yet, like an articles or interview. Yet. If some of those do materialize (and I'm pretty sure at least one of them is fairly imminent), I'll add them here.

As a closing note, I like this quote from Bruce Sterling:

Yes, you, Canada, formerly the adults on the continent.

2013.07.12. Added two more links, one to the Skeptically Speaking interview which went online today. It's the imminent one I mentioned above. The links/mentions is now up to 55 and the comments/trackbacks up to 128.

2 responses so far

Ontario Library Association Super Conference presentation: If I Knew Then What I Know Now: Some librarian job search advice

Jan 31 2013 Published by under around the web, librarianship, social media

Some colleagues and I are presenting tomorrow at the latest Ontario Library Association Super Conference. Here's the info:

Session: #1307:
Friday 3:45 PM 5:00 PM
Career development

John Dupuis, Acting Associate University Librarian, Information Services, York University; Tanis Fink, Director, Seneca Libraries, Seneca College; Amanda French, Manager, Sciences and Business Dept, Mississauga Library System; Klara Maidenberg, Virtual Reference Services & Assessment and Evaluation Librarian, Scholars Portal, OCUL; Zachary Osborne, Head Librarian, Toronto Botanical Garden; Jane Schmidt, Head, Collection Services, Ryerson University Library & Archives; Zoe Cliff, Information Management Analyst, Ontario Public Service.

Much of what is required for a successful career in the information profession is not taught in library school. The diverse panel will reflect on their own education, experience and career paths, and share tips for students on getting the most out of their degrees with advice for success in the field.

And huge thanks to friend and colleague Klara Maidenberg for organizing the session. It'll be great!

Some general sites that might not appear on the usual suspects lists:

Some articles and blog posts with various bits of advice:

And of course, suggestions for relevant articles or resources are always welcome in the comments.

No responses yet

Welcome to Yet Another Science Blogging Community: Phenomena!

Dec 18 2012 Published by under blogging, scholarly publishing, social media

Yes, the science blogging community has certainly seen some gyrations in the last few years with a bunch of new networks sprouting up, sometimes from the ashes of other networks, sometimes completely on their own.

The latest is Phenomena: A science salon hosted by National Geographic magazine.

Phenomena is a gathering of spirited science writers who take delight in the new, the strange, the beautiful and awe-inspiring details of our world. Phenomena is hosted by Jamie Shreeve, Executive Editor for Science at National Geographic magazine, who invites you to join the conversation.

So far at least, it's quite small with only four bloggers.

But what bloggers they are!

No responses yet

Recent Presentations: Getting Your Science Online and Evaluating Information

As I mentioned way back on October 22nd, I was kindly invited to give a talk at the Brock University Physics Department as part of their seminar series. The talk was on Getting Your Science Online, a topic that I'm somewhat familiar with! Since it was coincidentally Open Access Week, I did kind of an A-Z of online science starting with the various open movements: access, data and notebooks. From there I did a quick tour of the whys and wherefores of blogs and Twitter.

There was a good turnout of faculty and grad students with lots of great questions and feedback, some more skeptical that others but definitely stimulating and, I hope, worthwhile.

Here are the slides:

Thanks again to Thad Haroun and the Brock Physics Department for inviting me!

And the other notable presentation was just yesterday, part of my intervention in a section of one of York's science-for-non-science-majors courses, Natural Science 1700 Computers, Information and Society. The prof, Dov Lungu, and I collaborated on a three-part Information Literacy section for the course. In my three one-hour sessions I covered some of the basics of surviving the information needs of university life and in the second part, a fairly typical library session on how to find resources for the class. The third part was a bit more interesting in that Dov gave me free reign to talk about evaluating information online, pretty well any way I wanted.

I wouldn't normally bother to share my course materials here on the blog, but I rather like the presentation I used and I thought it went over fairly well. The various ridiculous examples I used worked well to spark a bit of discussion in quite a large class.

As usual, I appreciate any feedback.

No responses yet

Getting Your Science Online: Presentation at Brock University Physics Department

It seems that Brock University in St. Catherine's, Ontario really likes me. Two years ago, the Library kindly invited me to speak during their Open Access Week festivities. And this year the Physics Department has also very kindly invited me to be part of their Seminar Series, also to talk about Getting Your Science Online, this time during OA Week mostly by happy coincidence.

It's tomorrow, Tuesday October 23, 2012 in room H313 at 12:30.

Here's the abstract I've provided:

Physicist and Reinventing Discovery author Michael Nielsen has said that due to the World Wide Web, “[t]he process of scientific discovery – how we do science – will change more over the next 20 years than in the past 300 years.” Given the cornucopian nature of the Web, there’s a tool or strategy that will help most everyone with concrete goals in their research program. In this session we’ll take a look at some of the incredible opportunities the Web has opened up for scientists, from Open Access publishing, Open Notebooks and Open Data on the one hand, to blogs, Twitter and Google+ on the other.

It looks to be great fun! I'd like to thank Thad Haroun and the Brock Physics Department for kindly inviting me. I'll post the slides on the blog later this week.

The rest of this post is what I guess would count as "supplemental materials" for the presentation. The first chunk is a bunch of links on the main topics of the presentation, all the various "Open Whatever" topics. The rest is a long list of readings on blogs, Twitter and general social media for academics that I've assembled over the years and at least somewhat digested into the presentation, mostly based on a post from last year but will some extra and more recent items added.
Open Access

Open Access Mandates & policies

Open Access Repositories


Open Data

Open Notebook Science

Blogging networks


Blog Aggregators

Some physics & math blogs

And here are the blogs/twitter/social media resources I promised.

Feel free to add any suggestions in the comments.

2 responses so far

Older posts »