<html><head/><body><html><head></head><body>Bollocks. There's no such thing as real science. There's only natural history. <br>
<br>
For reference management worth looking at <a href="http://openbiblio.net">openbiblio.net</a> and other projects of the Open Bibliography group of the Open Knowledge Management. For a modern perspective on academic data sharing. Journals are 18th century technology run by a cartel, and plugging into that system ain't going to help it.<br>
<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">quemener.yves@free.fr wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word; font-family: sans-serif; margin-top: 0px">> From: "maxigas" <maxigas@anargeek.net><br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">i think for most hackers/hackerspace participants it is too much<br />hassle to engage with formal science, which is deemed simply too slow<br />and top-down. you know the joke that "real programmers don't write<br />documentation". i would be happy if more of the cool stuff which<br />people make in hackerspaces would be at least documented. :)</blockquote><br />Well, I am of the opinion, like many open source developers and people<br />I met in hackerspaces, that a project is useless, unless it can be<br />easily reproduced in another place. That usually means to have a <br />correct documentation. <br /><br />One of the first question, when a cool video is posted, is : where is<br />the source code? What
chip/engine/batteries/display are you using? How<br />did you wire that thing? The open source/hacker community do not have<br />clear commitees to accept a project as interesting, but some emergent<br />criterions appeared, and the ability to make the same thing at your <br />place is a crucial one.<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">De: "maxigas" <maxigas@anargeek.net><br />when i wrote my first proposal for my phd, several people commented<br />that what hackerspaces do is not "science", so i can't interpret it<br />as a science going against some basic tenets of mainstream science.<br />:)</blockquote><br />Well it is true : what hackerspaces do is not science, and the tenets<br />opposed by "mainstream science" are actually very good. Typically,<br />hacking projects are just fun things you want to do. That is ok, you<br />don't HAVE to do science. But _some_ projects do follow
the basic <br />steps of science research : <br />- find existing projects that come close to what you need<br />- try several solution, examine them objectively<br />- choose a final solution, make some tests<br />- propose new projects that can be based on yours.<br /><br />Thing is, today, you get hackers cred by making a cool video, a funny<br />articles and by putting some basic technical informations. Most people<br />see a bibliography and description of the state of the art as boring <br />parts that few people would read if you put it first (and they are right)<br />If there was an incentive to use such a format however, I think that <br />several projects could document their work as a scientific article and<br />be recognized as real science. <br /><br />And all projects documentation do not suck, a lot of the things on <br />Instructables are actually very detailled. I think that the main thing<br />missing is a references list, and the typical structure of a science <br
/>article.<br /><hr /><br />Theory mailing list<br />Theory@lists.hackerspaces.org<br /><a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/theory">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/theory</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html></body></html>