Readers without a forum

    Updated: 2013-10-13 08:24

    By Pam Belluck(The New Tork Times)

      Print Mail Large Medium  Small

    Care to comment on a Popular Science article - say, "These Magnetic Nanobots Could Carry Drugs Into Your Brain" or "FYI: Do Animals Have Orgasms?"

    That's not possible - not anymore. Last month, the magazine, known for a chatty, pop-culture approach to serious science, announced that it was shutting off online comments. "Comments," an editor wrote in an online post, "can be bad for science."

    The magazine said that vicious, insulting or ignorant comments can pollute otherwise intelligent online discussions and undermine public understanding of science itself. "Trolls and spambots," it said, sometimes hijacked the conversation, particularly on divisive issues like climate change and evolution.

    For example: "BUNK," one commenter said of an article posted in August about scientists finding fossil evidence that mammals weren't the first creatures with fur. "What this actually shows is that evolution is still nonsense and doesn't work."

    Even on sites where comments are actively screened - like nytimes.com - people who think evolution is bunk are generally permitted to voice their view, often to be shouted down by others; for some readers, following such comment threads is part of the fun. But Popular Science and other publications do not have the resources to moderate all comments, so personal attacks and other bits of ugliness can slip in.

    Still, the move to silence what many online readers consider a digital town square has ignited a burst of reaction from bloggers and commentators, as well as editors at other science magazines.

    "Unless a comment stream is actively moderated, it inevitably is ruined by bullies, hotheads and trolls," James Fallows wrote, explaining why he does not allow comments on his columns on The Atlantic's Web site.

    But others called Popular Science's move too extreme, disagreeing that public support for science could be imperiled by unbridled comments.

    Readers without a forum

    "I have to say I don't think comments are bad for science," Fred Guterl, executive editor of Scientific American, said. "To a point I think it's good when people talk about things and try their ideas out."

    To justify its ban, Popular Science cited a study at the University of Wisconsin-Madison suggesting that people's perceptions of the riskiness of a scientific advance can become more polarized after reading comments written in an uncivil tone.

    Popular Science's online content director, Suzanne LaBarre, wrote that the study implies a discomfiting spiral: "commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded."

    Ms. LaBarre said Popular Science could not afford comment moderators.

    At Nature, public comments are removed if editors or readers flag them as abusive or as spam, Noah Gray, a senior editor, said.

    "There's no doubt that uncivil discourse is bad for science," Dr. Gray said by e-mail.

    But, he said, comments can be very valuable, sometimes pointing out errors or alternative interpretations of the facts and theories presented in the article.

    The study found that people who read uncivil comments ended up more polarized in their views of the technology than those who read civil comments. Those who started off with a negative view of the technology thought it was even riskier when they read a comment like "This is a risk, you idiot," said Dietram Scheufele, one of the researchers.People who started off with a positive view thought it was even safer when they read "You're stupid - this is a benefit."

    "There's no way that a completely unmoderated discussion is not going to be detrimental to the facts," Dr. Scheufele said.

    While the magazine did not allow readers to comment on its no-comment announcement, it did permit comments on a post that quoted from reader e-mails and Facebook messages.

    One e-mail, from Nick Anglewicz, said: "I think you've made the right decision, thanks for the explanation," he wrote. "Now if only I could state my opinion on your post publicly on the Web site."

    The New York Times

    (China Daily 10/13/2013 page10)

    无码人妻精品一区二区三区东京热 | 中文字幕一二区| 亚洲AV无码一区二区三区系列 | 久久久久亚洲AV无码去区首 | 无码日韩人妻精品久久蜜桃| 日韩乱码人妻无码系列中文字幕| 久久人妻少妇嫩草AV无码专区| 日本高清不卡中文字幕免费| 中文字幕亚洲综合小综合在线| 精品无码人妻一区二区三区品| 天堂Aⅴ无码一区二区三区| 亚洲中文字幕无码爆乳AV| 国产高清无码视频| 色综合久久久久无码专区| 国产品无码一区二区三区在线蜜桃 | 日本中文字幕免费看| 中文无码熟妇人妻AV在线 | 免费无码一区二区| 久久午夜无码鲁丝片| 无码人妻精品一区二区| 国产网红主播无码精品| 国产成人无码免费看视频软件| 色噜噜综合亚洲av中文无码| 中中文字幕亚洲无线码| 中文无码熟妇人妻AV在线| 日韩精品无码免费视频| 国精品无码A区一区二区| 国产爆乳无码视频在线观看| 色综合AV综合无码综合网站| 日韩精品久久无码人妻中文字幕| 亚洲AV无码久久精品狠狠爱浪潮| 18禁超污无遮挡无码免费网站| 无码av高潮喷水无码专区线| 暴力强奷在线播放无码| 亚洲中文字幕无码永久在线| 无码人妻久久一区二区三区免费 | 日韩a级无码免费视频| 久久精品中文无码资源站| 狠狠精品久久久无码中文字幕| 中文精品无码中文字幕无码专区| 国产亚洲大尺度无码无码专线|