Defining science bloggers: Casey Luskin and BPR3

Wikipedia has a policy page which outlines What Wikipedia is Not. While it is possible to define Wikipedia in positive terms (it is an encyclopaedia and an online community of people working to write that encyclopaedia), it's more useful to define it in negative terms - not a dictionary, not a soapbox, not a publisher of original thought... After Casey Luskin's recent (mis)use of the ResearchBlogging (formerly BPR3) logo on a post at Evolution News & Views, a debate sprung up over the issue of his use of the icon. The ResearchBlogging icon is supposed to be used for blog posts about peer reviewed research. I first came across the issue yesterday when Mike Dunford raised the issue - among the issues with Luskin's use of the icon was the fact that, instead of registering to the site, it was downloaded to the Discovery Institute's server and hosted there, with no backlink to ResearchBlogging.org.

There's a more fundamental question of whether Luskin's post meets the guidelines for its use. While some people raised the issue of whether a review article meets the requirement of "peer reviewed research" and questioned whether EN&V can be called a blog (since it lacks a comment section), two other issues were more important:

• The post author should have read and understood the entire work cited.
• The blog post should report accurately and thoughtfully on the research it presents.

Luskin's post does not appear to meet the second guideline - that the post reported "accurately and thoughtfully". There's the quote mining issue - that bits were picked out of the paper to support a specific agenda. Couple this with the fact that Luskin put words in the mouth of the author that weren't in the paper, and the end result was that the post did not accurately reflect the paper.

In trying to define science bloggers, I suggested that

1. Science bloggers blog about science because they find it interesting
2. Science bloggers are interested in communicating their field of interest to people outside of their immediate field
   
3. Science bloggers are frequently motivated by a desire to defend science against pseudoscience and denialism

In my opinion, Luskin's work can't be called science blogging - it's agenda-driven blogging which seeks to discredit science. Rather than making it more accessible to the public, Luskin leaves his readers with a misunderstanding of what the paper was trying to say. Given that my original set of criteria were based largely on intent, I think it may be more useful to recast them in terms of what science blogging is not.

Posts on this issue

• Is this post following our guidelines? - Dave Munger, BPR3 blog. This is the central hub for discussion of the issue, and the how ResearchBlogging community should proceed with issues like this.
  
• Blogging About Peer-Reviewed Research at the Discovery Institute - Mike Dunford, The Questionable Authority. This is the post where Mike introduced the issue (at least to me).
  
• Luskin and the Peer-Reviewed Research Icon - the Saga Continues - Mike Dunford, The Questionable Authority. Mike talks about Luskin's "I didn't know, it's not my fault, I didn't realise it was copyright" reply.
• Oops! Another Discovery Institute Abuse & Misuse - Kevin Z, The Other 95%. Kevin Z has a good analysis of Luskin's post in the context of the ResearchBlogging guidelines, and then goes on to discuss the Origel article that Luskin quote mined.
  
• Dishonesty Institute - John Pieret, Thoughts in a Haystack.
  
• Casey Luskin is a Douchbag - Mister DNA, CBEB's (whose icon I'm stealing). He points out the irony in Luskin doing this so soon after his use of cease-and-desist letters to get Les Lane to take down a picture of Luskin (irony is lost on this man, isn't it?)
  
• BSpr3 -BullShit on peer reviewed research - SPARC, molecular B(io)LOG(y). SPARC suggests that we need a new icon for stuff like Luskin's paper.
  
• More Discovery Institute Shenanigans - Jessa, Impolite Conversations.
  
• Why I Love the BPR3 Icon and Hate Creationists for Abusing It - Greg Laden, Greg Laden's blog
• Casey Luskin demonstrates "fair use" doctrine - Joe McFaul, Law Evolution Science and Junk Science. He makes some very interesting points about fair use (Luskin's use is not) and how Luskin's use "affect[s] the market" of the ResearchBlogging brand. Fascinating stuff.
• Casey Luskin Demonstrates that ID Stands for Insidious Deception - Mike O'Risal, Hyphoid Logic. Mike makes a good point - while it's bad to use the icon inappropriately, the real problem is that he is unwilling to allow feedback. And, of course, it's a perfect encapsulation of the main problem with ID - their refusal to present their ideas for peer review.
  

Other people who mentioned the issue

• Science Smackdown - Bug Girl, Bug
  
• links for 2008-02-05 - Janet Stemwedel, Adventures in Ethics and Science
• Skepchick Quickies for 2.05 - Amanda, Memoirs of a Skepchick