LOLcats and labrats was the session I proposed as a session at Science Online London’s “Fringe Frivolous” on Friday:
The problem with science bloggers is that they’re scientists, and they can’t just blog and enjoy it, but they need to have meetings about it and analyze it. Analyze what, exactly? There are so many different kinds of science blogs, that we’re comparing apples and oranges, physicists and biologists, names and screen names, LOLcats and labrats. Before we continue having discussions about science blogging, we need to find out what it is we’re talking about and do some good old fashioned classification. In other words, sit around with a drink and collectively identify some common subcategories in science blogs. Because the real problem with science bloggers is the generalization that they’re scientists – they’re all different.
It was one of the two sessions voted for (the other was about PR for scientists) and a number of categories were thrown around. Erika Cule helped out by writing them all down, and this the result from the notes:
- Personal rant blogs
- Lab notebooks
- Learning blogs – in the act of writing, the author learns something. (Common in computer programming)
- Narrative – blogs by scientists which are not about science.
- not anonymous
- public engagement blogs
- research blogging
- science tattoos
- Historical/fictional author (Charles Darwin)
- Re-blogging historical diary/events
- Samuel Pepys
- NASA 40 years later
- poems about science
- comics (xkcd)
- bad science
- niche blogs within a particular field (eg. chemistry)
- campaigning science (keep libel laws out of science, feminist science blogs)
- semantic blogging + other technical aspects, blogs promoting adopting semantic approaches
- non-humans (blogging or twittering machine-generated readings)
There are probably more, but there wasn’t enough time. Feel free to add other categories if you think of something.