powers of four

Science writer Ed Yong recently wrote about the difference between writing for writing, and writing for change. One thing to remember is that there is no such thing as “blogging”. Blogging describes a medium, not a goal. It covers a whole spectrum of styles and purposes, and “success criteria” are therefore just as diverse. To have debates about the point of “science blogging” may not be a very useful exercise.

I'm not a science blogger, although I am a scientist who has a nominal blog. Later in the article, Sarah makes the statement, "I think long as you’re clear about what it is you’re trying to achieve, whatever the scale, and make an effort to find out how you’re doing (this step is often missing), you’re inherently on the right track." I think she's right on the money.

One of the projects I am involved with has a blog, which has largely lain fallow for some time (but hopefully not in the future!). But, I think it could be the mechanism for engaging community interest -- especially to raise the level of "external" participation. (Although, we live in an Open Source world -- "external" is losing its meaning.) But, while I think this probably will work for yt, I'm skeptical the same type of approach would work for the actual simulation code, simply because the type of participation the two communities foster is different.