Let's talk about content.
I don't think you'll have much argument from the Editors that we aren't experts in Scientific matters. That's not the point of Soylentnews - we aren't going to be able to vet the next "Cold Fusion" or disprove the existence of Dark matter. If you are looking for that kind of editorial control I'm afraid you are reading the wrong website.
Our part in this is to bring these articles to the table so they can be discussed. The source of the material should hardly matter as long as the article itself is well written and is not a flat advertisement for a specific product. I have seen a number of AC who don't like content from site "x" or "y" and expect us to get all of our Science from Science Daily. It isn't going to happen, and shouldn't be a concern. Submitters are getting information from wherever; that is not something Editorial should be vetting; the quality of the original should be vetted by the submitter. (Editorial has to check that the links exists; and warn about pay walls)
Most Science articles are typically results of studies, and as such it should be expected that the results will be re-interpreted over time when held up against new data. That's how science works. It should surprise no one to read about "proof" of "X" one day followed by a article disproving, or throwing doubt on the original article. If you are thinking that we're getting redundant; move on to the next article; or submit something new.
It shouldn't be consider verboten to link a site for a product's manufacturer - if the article is clearly about the existence of (Science based product that didn't previously exist). What is not allowed are articles that clearly states that "you should buy "X"" - however thinly veiled.
That all said we should try to put together a list of reputable sites that we can use to source material from - in hope that we will see some fresh content submitted by members here who have not submitted before.
So where should we look? What sites are pure garbage and what do you hold up to a gold standard?
What should be accepted as content, and what do we reject as advertisements, conjecture, or a bad source?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday October 26 2014, @12:12AM
lobste.rs
(Score: 2, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday October 26 2014, @12:29AM
Good sites:
Futurity [futurity.org], Nature [nature.com], The Register [theregister.co.uk], BBC, IEEE, New Scientist [newscientist.com], Singularity Hub [singularityhub.com], .edu research press releases, Phys.org, The Scientist [the-scientist.com], AnandTech, arXiv, Science Daily, arstechnica.com, NYT, MIT Technology Review [technologyreview.com]
Questionable:
Nextbigfuture [nextbigfuture.com] (overoptimistic futurism), HPCwire [hpcwire.com] (some sponsored content), H+ Magazine [hplusmagazine.com] (overoptimistic), KurzweilAI.net [kurzweilai.net] (some good research writeups, some self-promotion blurbs), VICE, Wired (see Anonabox), http://eurekalert.org/ [eurekalert.org], http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ [medicalnewstoday.com], Network World/Computer World, Reddit, The Atlantic (per article basis)
Bad:
Fox/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS, Yahoo!, CNN, RT
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Ken_g6 on Sunday October 26 2014, @04:30AM
Decent aggregators I haven't seen elsewhere:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/ [discovermagazine.com]
http://www.wired.com/category/wiredscience [wired.com]
And then there's my list of Climate Change and environmental links. These should not be primary sources in general, as they're often politicized, but they can link to better sources:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/ [thinkprogress.org]
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] anything on blogspot for science.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble [motherjones.com]
(Score: 1) by Ken_g6 on Sunday October 26 2014, @04:34AM
I found a bug in the slashcode! What I meant to say was that you really shouldn't be linking to anything on blogspot for science.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday October 26 2014, @08:26AM
It might be interesting to get a list of worthwhile university research news sites/pages, much like the MIT Tech Review. This is the only one I know just offhand, but it's worth checking once a week or so:
UC Berkeley: Research News [berkeley.edu]
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday October 26 2014, @09:10AM
Other California-based research campuses that came to mind right after I posted my comment:
Science & Technology
UC Berkeley Research-IT [berkeley.edu] ("research through IT innovation")
Stanford Engineering [stanford.edu] (comp sci, aeronautics, etc.)
Stanford Science & Technology [stanford.edu]
UCLA Science & Tech [ucla.edu]
UCLA Environment & Climate [ucla.edu]
Stanford Social Sciences [stanford.edu]
University of California Science Today [ucsciencetoday.com]
Medical Research
UCSF Medical News [ucsf.edu]
Stanford Medical News [stanford.edu]
UC Davis Medical News [ucdavis.edu]
UCLA Health & Behavior [ucla.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26 2014, @08:43AM
http://www.innovations-report.com/ [innovations-report.com]
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ [scientificamerican.com]
https://www.sciencenews.org/ [sciencenews.org]
http://www.livescience.com/ [livescience.com]
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/blog/the-loom/ [nationalgeographic.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27 2014, @02:16AM
You can also select somewhat by topic. If it's a story about cold fusion, leave that alone. Also, if it's a story about particles that travel faster than light, leave it alone:). It's fringe science, not necessariy (though usually) bunk, but leave it to the pros. Perhaps Soylent could use a science editor.
Takyon gets a lot right, but I'm not familiar with some on the list. He puts Wired on the questionable-list, but Wired is usually very good, as a popular interpreter of science. If you're going to include Nature, you have to also include Science http://www.sciencemag.org/. [sciencemag.org] But these are mostly for scientists, so you might just check their editor's picks and news items. So it seems there is a bit of a void in the interesting science news aggregator department. I smell opportunity.
Basically, stick to main stream stuff. There is a lot of cool science happening that is main stream. By the way, if you're interested in science that is related to tech, how about more articles in solid state/condensed matter and materials physics.
These days I've been listening to NPR's Science Friday and Radiolab, two great science shows. Scientific American is a good general science mag. Physics Today is a little on the technical side, but possibly of interest.
If you want a pre-compiled list, check wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Sunday October 26 2014, @12:32AM
Any popular press article worth reporting on will have a link to the peer-reviewed journal in which the original research was published. If it takes more than two or three links to get to such a publication, it's not worth reporting on. And the original research, even if behind a paywall, should always be included in the summary.
Another variation on that theme is a press release or similar announcement from a university research department or major research organization (like NASA or CERN). Those are always associated with peer-reviewed publications, but the publications oftentimes don't come until after the announcement, especially in the case of the spectacular stuff like the discovery of the Higgs boson.
I don't think we'll get too upset if y'all get duped by some shady fly-by-night pseudoscientific blogspam outfit masquerading as a peer-reviewed journal, though I'm sure we'd appreciate an update to the summary once it gets pointed out in the comments. So, feel free to use that as the "sniff" test: can you link to what at least seems like a legitimate peer-reviewed journal article? If so, run with it.
And, if not, don't try to pass it off as science. It may still be worth reporting, especially if it's being flogged by some commercial interest. Just be sure to note that there's no indication that this has gone through peer review and so should be taken with an even larger grain of salt than normal.
What would be especially nice would be if the editors could keep an eye out for later retractions or other follow-ups on articles that get repeated here, but that's likely asking a lot for what's still an amateur labor of love.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday October 26 2014, @04:44AM
Its been my observation that University press releases are nearly always done buy Journalism Majors interning in the PR department. These twerps always get it wrong.
But other than that I disagree with your statement:
If it takes more than two or three links to get to such a publication, it's not worth reporting on.
That is precisely when it IS worth reporting on. When you can spend 5 or to minutes researching and dig to the source and save everybody else the effort, THAT is what makes it worth while, and your effort helps everyone.
(Besides, doing that, you sometime find out there was no THERE there, and you scrap the whole thing).
I do sometimes question the continuous stream of social injustice rants, but it takes all kinds (i suppose) to have a tech oriented site like SoylentNews, so I pretty much hold my tongue. These are cheap articles of cut and paste with no research behind them, even less analysis, and always linked to a single source, with no attempt to verify the facts. I'm pretty much never following any of those links anyway.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday October 26 2014, @08:19AM
I've noticed quite a few links to sociology/psych/social psych articles covering new research (often relating to gender/sex), but the submitters often seem to write the summaries in a way that generates false controversy/conflict, including with pseudo-rants. I find that very frustrating, as it reduces complex issues we could have interesting conversations about down to the same old boring group A-versus-group B battles — the equivalent of phrasing every astronomy article summary in a way that turns it into a fight about public vs. private funding.
I think more people like you in the tech community would see the value in social sciences if they weren't always presented either as controversial discussion-bait or as flamingly obvious. It's an annoying shame that they're instead viewed (and given the summaries or articles, often rightly) as the academic equivalent of low-rent clickbait.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26 2014, @12:42AM
http://news.sciencemag.org/ [sciencemag.org]
http://pipeline.corante.com/ [corante.com]
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/ [scienceblogs.com]
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ [medicalnewstoday.com]
http://www.researchblogging.org/ [researchblogging.org]
http://esciencenews.com/ [esciencenews.com]
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ [sciencebasedmedicine.org]
http://blogs.nature.com/news/ [nature.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 26 2014, @12:54AM
Only one I have left to add is http://phys.org/ [phys.org]
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday October 26 2014, @01:41AM
That all said we should try to put together a list of reputable sites that we can use to source material from - in hope that we will see some fresh content submitted by members here who have not submitted before.
I don't want to see an approved site list. That just limits us. People should explore and fined their favorite sites by themselves.
That way we aren't all trawling the same waters of a few selected sites.
You might have a case for banning some sites, but even that is problematic. There are those that will start an argument if you link to Fox News, even then they had the story first and it was spot on. There are newbies here that never understood that The Register often scoops main stream press sites, and assume its The Onion or something just because of their writing style.
In short, an approved list or a banned list is just a bad idea.
We are better off to link to writers in the specific field than linking to paywalled journals. The writers have subscriptions. We mostly don't. Some of those writers probably understand it better than we do. But on the other hand I'd like to see people chasing things a little deeper than just one site. I've found several stories that looked good, but upon further research I found dissenting views, contradictory reporting, and indications that the original source had a long history of bogosity.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khchung on Sunday October 26 2014, @01:50AM
Agreed. Let the junk science get ripped to shreds in the comments.
(Score: 1) by lentilla on Sunday October 26 2014, @02:20AM
In short, an approved list or a banned list is just a bad idea.
I'd certainly agree that an approved list is not an healthy option. Even despite the millions of websites in existence, most of us probably source our "news" from a rather select number of these - so it's probably not a good idea to further amplify the effect.
I'm not entirely opposed to a banlist. I would have thought the editors (those who OK submitted stories for publication) would at least maintain some sort of list of questionable sites in their heads. (For example: Obama's obituary in The Onion probably needs additional verification.) Given that there are always "exceptions to the rule" I'd hate to see the editors restricted by something so artificial as an outright list of banned sites.
We are better off to link to writers in the specific field than linking to paywalled journals.
Now that's a tidy idea. Although I admit (in the true style inherited by this site) I don't often read articles linked to scientific journals. Certainly the paywall is an immediate impediment, but I'm also looking for the summary (explanation?) because in most cases I'm not going to sufficiently appreciate the nuances of somebody else's specialty.
(Score: 1) by Anonoob on Sunday October 26 2014, @03:04AM
clumsy clogs did not mean to mod down. I actually agree, list of good sites will come from regular good articles coming from them. I would rather see list of possibly dodgy sources listed. Then again those too will be become obvious from the comments on SN.
Also find summary on SN is more readable when it has no more than a paragraph from the source, and has more than one link. I like to read why it was interesting rather than what it said, after all that is why one clicks the link/s. Like many here I use SN as a source of interesting news, so often the comments themselves are indicator enough of whether the source will be worth a read.
Keep up the good work everybody - much appreciated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26 2014, @03:27AM
However, some of us do. I appreciate links to the research articles, if they are available. If the topic interests me enough and I have the time to read the research article, I will add my thoughts on what I think to the conversation. I often find that what is put in the peer-reviewed article is much different than what is put in the university press release.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Sunday October 26 2014, @04:06PM
In short, an approved list or a banned list is just a bad idea.
Depends on how you do it. It can be a handy way to filter out the obvious crackpots. Or to find the obvious crackpots, if that's your goal.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Monday October 27 2014, @02:32PM
I agree - an hard list of "approved" sites isnt a smart thing to do.
BUT it is a good place to start; especially if we wanted to set an RSS bot to just track titles on a few select sources. On slow days it will be good to have a place to check so we can pull stuff to put up
A Banned list is even worse. if all you want to do is post up the horrid article so we can rip it to shreds; you ought to be able to do that.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 26 2014, @01:49AM
This is about the "hoverboards", isn't it. Yes, some were a bit harsh, especially including me. Apologies. But the conflict of interest thing has to be first and foremost when reporting "science", because advertisement is like the complete opposite of science.
(Score: 1) by takyon on Sunday October 26 2014, @02:57AM
I think it was about E-Cat [soylentnews.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Blackmoore on Monday October 27 2014, @03:03PM
And I'll send up another post like this in a week or so asking about tech sites, even if it's a re-hash of the "where do you get your news" - if only so we have more places to look.
The Hoverboard / Kickstarter article is a stick in my craw. I get that most people see it as an advertisement; and at the same time it really is a great thing to see new start-ups with new and previously fictional tech.
It needs it's own category; and perhaps it's own place to be. so people who see it as advertising can skip it; and those who want to see Kickstarters in articles can have a place for it too. but it isnt going to happen without some "stuff on the back end" and maybe some additional fund raising [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26 2014, @04:21AM
Also still handy in Microsoft FrontPage.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday October 26 2014, @11:57AM
Oh, I dunno. I know more math & science than the average bear, but people on SN know much more than I do and I learn a lot whenever they post on any related article. Frojack, VLM, and many others teach me something every time they post on the subject. That's true whether the source article is from a reliable publication or not.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26 2014, @07:25PM
And some of the time those guys are even right.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday October 26 2014, @01:54PM
Let's talk about content.
Eh... let's not and say we did.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26 2014, @04:01PM
If that happens, then the post was successful.
"More worthless nonsense from Site X" does not count as good conversation, although admittedly it is sometimes an appropriate response - not nearly as often as it's posted, though.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Sunday October 26 2014, @05:47PM
(Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday October 26 2014, @10:26PM
I frequent http://net-security.org/ [net-security.org] quite a bit for news and have posted a few here. Some of their articles are quite opinionated though, but from security analysts, better than random ACs.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday October 27 2014, @11:37AM
There are places like The Onion [theonion.com] that are obviously satirical. When I see someone use it in a comment, I chuckle. I have never seen it as a source for actual news on Soylent News and I hope I never do. It's just common sense that it should not be used. With this idea in mind, I think it's safe to say there are a select few websites we should avoid as news sources. It's nearly impossible to make a good list, though. (And it can change over time.)
I made a few scathing remarks about the The Daily Mail on multiple occasions. My last comment [soylentnews.org] explained why in decent detail. Since then, I haven't seen the Daily Mail pop up as a source anymore. For that, editors, I thank you.
The biggest problem with the Daily Mail is that they mix truth with falsehoods. Of course, all websites and sources do that to a certain degree, some not intentional, but the Daily Mail is particularly bad because it does it on purpose. One cannot possibly know if an article is truth or not without verifying other sources. My best friend is paralyzed and recently, his wife sent an article about a man who was paralyzed, received stem cell injections, and walked again [bbc.com]. The problem was is that his wife saw the article at the Daily Mail and sent it out to their friends with a Daily Mail link. I wouldn't have even known it was true article except I went to debunk it and found it on several other sources too. (I refuse to link to the Daily Mail, so you get BBC instead.)
With that said, I find myself on the fence with the list takyon [soylentnews.org] provided:
With the exception of RT (which I haven't read so I can't comment about), the others provide pretty biased crap, but they have good news buried in their articles sometimes. The biggest problem with this list is that as a readers and commenters, our focus tends to be more on the bias and less on the science -- which isn't what we want to do on here at Soylent News. I'm a little hesitant to say we should ban these guys. (I'm not a believer in banning something as a news source except under the rarest of circumstances. Seeing The Daily Mail so often here was harming us so I made the ruckus as did several others.) We should be very careful about using them as sources, though.
TL;DR and Conclusion: In general, if a website is trustworthy and not overly biased, they're pretty safe to use as source. If they have heavy bias, they should be used very judiciously. If they put out falsehood often, they shouldn't be used at all -- that includes the Onion and Daily Mail. An exact list? Too hard to pin down.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday October 28 2014, @02:46PM
Listing the Daily Mail alongside a satire website (the Onion) is ridiculous. All newspapers / news websites are capable of misleading articles.
Regarding the major UK national newspapers, I would estimate that actually the Mirror is worst, with the Express at #2, the Mail at #3, the Sun at #4 (mainly because it often obviously doesn't take itself seriously), the Telegraph at #5. The Times, Guardian and Independent would be least bad. Of those I read far more of the Guardian, but I still sometimes finish an article and conclude that the writer & editor(s) have set out to deliberately mislead.