Do Comments On Web Pages Ruin Science?

GregLaden writes "Last week Popular Science shut down comments on their web pages citing the damage being done to the public perception of science as their reason. Earlier research suggested this might be a good idea because trollish, negative comments can color the perception by readers of a news story. However, some have taken Popular Science's move to be anti-science, implying that science itself is positively affected by web and blog comments, as though these comments contributed to the science being done itself. Here, I take exception to this and suggest that while comments are important in relation to the public perception of science (which itself is important) blog and web commentary never, or only rarely, influences the process of scientific inquiry itself."

Comments

Re:Dissident Speech

[allaunjsilverfox2]

Nope, no room for that, even in the "science" community.

Conform or be squelched.

Could you point out a scientific study for your hypothesis?

I used to share this opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to think that the web comments on science articles tended to consist of an over-representation of people with one or two personal pet ideas (eg: Dark matter is the ether of the 21st century, etc....) but then I discovered that it really was possible to make over $7000 dollars a month working from home on the internet.

Re:Moderation

[amicusNYCL]

The mean factually incorrect things could still be modded up.

There might be a way to combat that, though. You could possibly employ some sort of system where the moderations themselves could get moderated, maybe even allocate moderation points to those users who consistently make good moderations, and give fewer or no points to those whose moderations get consistently labeled as incorrect or inappropriate. I wonder if a system like that would work.

Answer:

[halexists]

I'm pretty sure it's science that ruins lots of comments on web pages.