Recently reviewed in the New Scientist (11th April 2009) "The Open Laboratory: the best science writing on blogs 2008" edited by Jennifer Rohn, poses some interesting questions on science blogging
"There are many highly entertaining pieces here, but also some less than engaging ones. Too many are mini-lectures, with no narrative or personal angle to sustain your attention. This kind of writing works for readers interested in specific areas, but will never draw a wider audience.
If these pieces really do represent the very best science writing on blogs, I'm afraid I have to agree with science blogger John Hawks: "If we're going to compare the entire blogosphere with The New York Times, in terms of how much is worth reading for the average non-professional interested in science, the blogosphere is worse by an order of magnitude."
What's your view?
Thanks to Mary in the Sherpa team for flagging this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment