Why Web 2.0 is failing in biology?
David Crotty, a science blogger, wrote this fundamental post in 2008:
“If you spend much time in the science blogosphere, everyone seems to be talking about these great tools and the changes they’re making in research science. But when you step away from the enthusiasts and speak with the majority of scientists, you find out that they don’t have much interest in using many of these new technologies”
- Lack of time: potential users are overscheduled and overworked: they are already completely overloaded by current literature to digest
- Authors of blogs or contributions are rarely prominent researchers: those prefer classic channels (books, prestigious journals, congresses) which are more incentive, more lucrative, more prestigious
- No business model behind
- Need a high level of participation! If they are users-created content, so No users = no content (and the circle goes around)
- A confused « market »: too many sites for a same purpose: Connotea, CiteUlike, etc.
- Usability (the Ipod model)
- Services are inappropriate to the Scientists culture: « Scientists don’t find collaborators by chatting online with strangers»
- Scientists use social networks to find a job (LinkedIn) not to chat with friends
- Science Blogs are only read by other Science bloggers, students, non-scientists/non specialists and journalists
- Flaws of Blogs: « me to » (too much with the same information) + « I do » (too ego-centered)
Crotty, David. Why Web 2.O is failing in Biology. Bench Marks blog, online, Feb. 2008: http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/
I would complete with: accumulation of Private stuffs, non-relevant widgets, links to commercial shops, etc. All these non-relevant things have also contributed to lack of credibility.