In recent years, we have seen the Internet revolutionise mass communication, with new methods ofscientific communication are emerging almost monthly. A number of online resources, with names thatsound as if they belong to a new language, are being heard:
Webheads, Worldbridges, Skype, Second Life and Better World, Elluminate, Alado, Tapped In,Twitter, Ning, Wikispaces, PBWiki, Slideshare, Bubbleshare, Webshots, Voicethread, Flickr,Facebook, Moodle, Pageflakes

It’s the language of new media, an emerging array of online technologies. This is the age of Web 2.0,which refers to a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services such associal networking sites, wikis and folksonomies that facilitate collaboration and sharing between users.Web 2.0 is not a new version of the web; it’s just a new way of working with the web, and it’s having atransformational influence on communicators, educators and students.

Social networking sites like Facebook have inspired science network applications like Nature Networkand Knowble. Collaborative ‘publishing’ efforts such as Wikipedia have stimulated collaborativescience sites like PLoS-ONE and Nature Precedings. Scientists are starting to ‘think out loud’ onblogs and put early data up on the web.What does all of this mean for science communication? How will the next generation of scientists –and science communicators – adapt new communication technologies to their work?

This presentation will focus on the pros and cons of Facebook for science communicators. Will itbecome our best social network site, content provider and opinion shaper? How can we use it? Will itbe an over-flooded river of ‘stuff’, cluttered with junk information and poor science?

The interactive presentation (workshop?) will address advantages (participatory, personal, cheap,paperless, not time-specific, specialist, etc), disadvantages (privacy concerns, unqualified data, youth-based, impersonal, superficial, opinionated, over-cluttered, etc) and opportunities (network building,sharing ideas and resources, ongoing discussions, etc)

">
 [PCST]
PCST Network

Public Communication of Science and Technology

 

Facebook
Science meets social networking

Don Alcock   Keytext Communication

Bianca Nogrady   Freelance science communicator

In recent years, we have seen the Internet revolutionise mass communication, with new methods ofscientific communication are emerging almost monthly. A number of online resources, with names thatsound as if they belong to a new language, are being heard:
Webheads, Worldbridges, Skype, Second Life and Better World, Elluminate, Alado, Tapped In,Twitter, Ning, Wikispaces, PBWiki, Slideshare, Bubbleshare, Webshots, Voicethread, Flickr,Facebook, Moodle, Pageflakes

It’s the language of new media, an emerging array of online technologies. This is the age of Web 2.0,which refers to a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services such associal networking sites, wikis and folksonomies that facilitate collaboration and sharing between users.Web 2.0 is not a new version of the web; it’s just a new way of working with the web, and it’s having atransformational influence on communicators, educators and students.

Social networking sites like Facebook have inspired science network applications like Nature Networkand Knowble. Collaborative ‘publishing’ efforts such as Wikipedia have stimulated collaborativescience sites like PLoS-ONE and Nature Precedings. Scientists are starting to ‘think out loud’ onblogs and put early data up on the web.What does all of this mean for science communication? How will the next generation of scientists –and science communicators – adapt new communication technologies to their work?

This presentation will focus on the pros and cons of Facebook for science communicators. Will itbecome our best social network site, content provider and opinion shaper? How can we use it? Will itbe an over-flooded river of ‘stuff’, cluttered with junk information and poor science?

The interactive presentation (workshop?) will address advantages (participatory, personal, cheap,paperless, not time-specific, specialist, etc), disadvantages (privacy concerns, unqualified data, youth-based, impersonal, superficial, opinionated, over-cluttered, etc) and opportunities (network building,sharing ideas and resources, ongoing discussions, etc)

A copy of the full paper has not yet been submitted.

BACK TO TOP