LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  January 2006

SOCNET January 2006

Subject:

Re: [Fwd: Nature's fake news]

From:

[log in to unmask]

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:59:14 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (244 lines)

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

David,

 

You're right, it wasn't you. My mistake.  But if it were you, and even
though it isn't, what need is there really, to defend against a satire?
Someone else's idea of a mockery does not undo years of work, nor does
it unravel social science generally.  How can it?  .If anything, it's a
sign that our work and this field are emerging in the culture's
imagination and attention.  I would imagine one would be more concerned
about another scholar criticizing one's work in a scholarly paper than
over an essay in a scholarly magazine. And even then, so what?  The neat
thing is that the ideas are being discussed.  This is exciting!
Furthermore, there might not be any harm in looking at what we are being
made fun of...about.  What a bad response would be is to take this all
personally, carry umbrage about it and cry injustice.  I don't think
social network analysis and related concepts and ideas are so weak that
a joke, even an unfunny one, can dismantle them.  And in a sphere of
peer review, I know the temptation is to equate our egos with our work,
but this is dangerous.  My ideas are not me, nor are your ideas you.  We
are both more than the sum of them, and no crass or hilarious writing,
skit or other inane buffoonery by anyone else can undo that.  Disagree
if you like, but I think we don't need to be upset.  That will only make
me wonder if the mockery is somehow merited.

 

Sincerely,

 

Malcolm

 

  _____  

From: David Gibson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:20 PM
To: Edwards, Malcolm 
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Nature's fake news]

 

Malcolm -- The situations aren't really comparable: I'm not the one who
was attacked and this wasn't a review but a mockery, plus a jab at
social science research generally.

David

Edwards, Malcolm wrote: 

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
 
Dear David,
 
Before you respond to the satire, I recommend "Being Reviewed: The ABM
and Its Theory", an essay by Paul Fussell.  I think the essay is in one
of his books, but I don't remember the title.  A reference is found to
it here:
 
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/03/02/authors/
 
-Malcolm
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Social Networks Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of David Gibson
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [Fwd: Nature's fake news]
 
*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
 
Socnetters -- this is a truly outrageous situation. In the very least 
beware of Helen Pearson.
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:       Nature's fake news
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:02:25 -0500
From:   Duncan Watts <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
To:     Duncan Watts <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
 
 
 
Dear colleagues -- you might be surprised to learn that /Nature News/, 
that bastion of reliable and informed science reporting, is now in 
competition with the Daily Show. 
 
But apparently it is.  Starting this week, /Nature News /has begun 
publishing an online column: "To be blunt: Looking for the point of 
seemingly pointless research," authored by "Sybil", an apparent 
reference to the namesake of multiple-personalty disorders. Like the 
original Sybil story, however, the news, and the reporter who writes it,
 
is fake. 
 
The reporter is, in fact, Helen Pearson, a writer for /Nature/ who has 
apparently won awards for science journalism in the past.  Her intent, 
however, is not to understand or explain the research she discusses, but
 
to ridicule and belittle it.   
 
I'm embarrassed to say I was Ms. Pearson's first unsuspecting victim.  
 
Last week my graduate student, Gueorgi Kossinets, and I published a 
paper in /Science/, entitled "Empirical analysis of an evolving social 
network".  I won't burden you with the details here (you can find them 
at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5757/88 if you're 
interested), but I'm very proud of the paper, as well as Kossinets' 
herculean efforts in performing the required analysis.  
 
So I was particularly pleased when Ms. Pearson called me last week, 
expressing her interest in writing a story for /Nature's/ online news 
site.  Having read Philip Ball's careful and insightful reports for 
years, I imagined that /Nature News/ would be a great opportunity for us
 
to have a substantive but accessible news story written about our work.
 
And after speaking with Ms. Pearson for about two hours on the phone, 
over two consecutive days, sending her some additional reading material,
 
and recommending (at her request) a number of other social network 
researchers she could talk to, I felt pretty confident that we would 
have exactly that.  She asked lots of questions, seemed intent on 
understanding my responses, and generally acted like a real science 
journalist.  
 
So imagine my surprise when monday morning I saw that our work had been 
characterized as "bizarre" and "pointless" in a derisive fluff piece by 
a fictional columnist.  You can read it, which I recommend you do, 
at  http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060109/full/060109-1.html  (don't 
worry, it won't take long).
 
I'm not sure what offends me more: the snide, silly, and ignorant nature
 
of the column itself; or the weirdly unprofessional manner in which Ms. 
Pearson conducted herself.  If you actually read our paper, it should be
 
obvious that Sybil hasn't, nor has she paid attention to anything I said
 
or wrote (remember, we spoke for two /hours/, not two minutes). She also
 
somehow never got around to soliciting comments from anyone else, or 
perhaps she just ignored them as well; either way, her opinions remain 
uncontaminated by any actual expertise.  That the NSF and the McDonnell 
Foundation funded our work, and that /Science/ saw fit to publish it 
were also both obviously beside the point.
 
So what was the point?
 
According to the news editor, Nicola Jones, Sybil's goal is "to peer 
into science that, from its summary, press release or title, appears to 
have arrived at a somewhat obvious conclusion. But, by interviewing the 
authors of these works and delving more deeply into the science, we hope
 
to reveal the reasons why such questions are indeed worth
investigating."  
 
I don't know what /Science/ said in its press release, because I had 
nothing to do with it.  But if you can find the part where our questions
 
are revealed to be worthy, please let me know, because I seem to have 
missed it.  And even overlooking the disingenuous nature of Ms. 
Pearson's enquiries, since when does not reading anything, or soliciting
 
third party opinions, qualify as "delving more deeply into the 
science".  Or even satisfy the basic standards of science journalism.  
 In any case, understanding the point of our work was clearly never 
Sybil's intent, seeing as she overlooked or disparaged most of what I 
told her anyway.  
 
So maybe it wasn't meant to be serious, in which case presumably it 
doesn't matter that it's sloppy, slanted, and sarcastic.  Ms. Jones, at 
least, seems to think I'm the one being unreasonable: the real 
intention, she claims, is to "enlighten and amuse" (so much for "delving
 
deeply").  Why can't I just be a better sport about it?  
 
Well, if you think that publicly belittling someone's work that you 
haven't even bothered to read, while remaining anonymous yourself, is 
somehow clever, then feel free to have a laugh at my expense.  But 
please spare a thought for my graduate student, whose first big paper 
has now been tarnished by Ms. Pearson's cheap shot.  
 
And if you don't think it's funny, please share your opinion with the 
Editor-in-Chief of Nature, Dr. Philip Campbell <[log in to unmask] 
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >, who ought to
know that while this kind of 
silly nonsense might be OK on the Comedy Channel, it has no place in a 
distinguished journal like /Nature/.  
 
Sincerely,
 
Duncan Watts
Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy
815 IAB
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027
 
(212)854-4343 (phone)
(212)854-8925 (fax)
http://cdg.columbia.edu <http://cdg.columbia.edu/>
<http://cdg.columbia.edu/> 
 
 
 
  

 

-- 



David Gibson

Assistant Professor

Department of Sociology

University of Pennsylvania

3718 Locust Walk

Philadelphia, PA 19104-6299

 

http://www.soc.upenn.edu/~gibsond/


"Secure Server" made the following
 annotations on 01/12/2006 02:59:19 PM
------------------------------"This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately."
==============================

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager