Why I Don’t Use the BPR3 Icon
I’m a bit cynical about the revolutionary power of the blogosphere. I blog because it’s a fun and easy way to share things that I find exciting, it makes my writing better, and it helps keep my ginormous slavering beast of an ego fed in the manner to which it has become accustomed. I don’t blog because I want to have a scientific discussion with scientific colleagues about peer reviewed sciencey science. I would rather have sophomoric intellectual wank-fests about science policy, cockroach geologists, and structural inequity… um, but when I say “sophomoric intellectual wank-fests” I mean the good kind of sophomoric intellectual wank-fests.
I suppose I wouldn’t be sad if sciencey science discussion happened, but my goal here is to foster wank-fests among a lay audience, not to make blogs the new AGU conference beer break.
None of what I’m doing is incompatible with the goals of the BPR3 project, but the boosterism and the use of the icon I’ve seen has been so relentlessly serious that me and my light tone find it difficult to identify as a member of the tribe. Which might be why I’m not feeling the proper amount of bloodlust at the oncoming smackdown of a Discovery Institute blog for using the BPR3 icon in violation of the guidelines.
Anyway, the real reason you won’t see me using the BPR3 icon much, if at all, is that I’m lazy. Just look at all the work they want you to do!
4. The post author should have read and understood the entire work cited.
5. The blog post should report accurately and thoughtfully on the research it presents.
7. The post should contain original work by the post author — while some quoting of others is acceptable, the majority of the post should be the author’s own work.
We have to read the whole thing? Even the methods section? Pffft. Methods sections are boring.
I hereby promise that when I blog about a peer-reviewed paper, I will read the abstract and look at the pictures. Then I will attempt to come up with a flippant joke that is vaguely related to the content of the paper. If I can’t think of a good joke I might write a straight summary of the research, together with a blurb about why I find it interesting and how it relates to current problems in the field. I’ll read exactly as much of the paper as that requires, which probably means skimming the introduction, discussion, and conclusions, and then a little bit of
random Googling background research.
Under no circumstances do I want the word “work” coming anywhere near my blog. I have enough of that with the thesis, thanks.