Crowdsourcing and Scientific Truth

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday May 6, 2012 @03:09AM from the truth-by-committee dept.

ygslash writes "In an opinion piece in the New York Times Sunday Review, Jack Hitt states that comments posted to on-line articles, and elsewhere on line, have de facto become an important factor in what is accepted as scientific truth. From the article: 'Any article, journalistic or scientific, that sparks a debate typically winds up looking more like a good manuscript 700 years ago than a magazine piece only 10 years ago. The truth is that every decent article now aspires to become the wiki of its own headline.'"

1 of 62 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Science as a social construct by ApharmdB · 2012-05-06 03:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is the article author aware of how pervasive astroturfing is in the comments sections? Perhaps if the article is about a subject that no one has a financial or political interest in, comments sections could serve this way. But as soon as someone's got an interest to protect, you can't trust the comments to be anything other than posts made by paid people creating fake personas to do so. Slashdot has had articles about this type of astroturfing before.