WEBVTT 00:04.670 --> 00:08.790 Hello, first of all, I would like to start right away, since I really 00:08.790 --> 00:14.290 have little time now, in my presentation briefly about scientists, and 00:14.290 --> 00:20.850 of course I mean scientists, and how they are present in Web 2.0 and 00:20.850 --> 00:25.690 see whether transparency and participation come into play. 00:28.070 --> 00:33.690 The fact is, of course, that scientists like you and me are online, 00:34.250 --> 00:36.730 like all people, they consume and communicate. 00:37.250 --> 00:43.230 There was a study in 2009, where 98% of the scientists admitted that 00:43.230 --> 00:47.030 they are on the Internet in their professional everyday life. 00:48.050 --> 00:52.230 And in the same study, the scientists also admitted that with the term 00:52.230 --> 00:55.690 Web 2.0, 77% of them can also do something. 00:57.150 --> 01:00.110 That was 2009, so I assume there are many more today. 01:01.210 --> 01:02.990 In their profession, they are networked. 01:03.290 --> 01:08.130 Of course, one must not forget that the Web comes from research, and 01:08.130 --> 01:14.110 already Web 1.0 provided wonderful tools, like mailing lists, 01:15.050 --> 01:22.210 newsgroups and so on, and Web 2.0 also offers wonderful things, like a 01:22.210 --> 01:26.570 peer -review platform or online review journals and so on. 01:28.150 --> 01:32.710 But that is now the communication among the scientists. 01:32.950 --> 01:38.470 What interests us, or what interested us in our project, is the 01:38.470 --> 01:43.270 science, how it communicates to the outside world, so the 01:43.270 --> 01:47.070 communication between scientists and laypeople, to put it simply. 01:47.070 --> 01:53.010 And at InsideScience, we made the first experiences with a tool, which 01:53.010 --> 01:59.710 basically builds on this dialogical character, which has a dialog 01:59.710 --> 02:03.590 format, and that is the WebBlock. 02:04.030 --> 02:06.770 That is why I would like to touch on that. 02:08.890 --> 02:12.210 I would like to keep the slide very short, because we all know what 02:12.210 --> 02:12.750 blocks are. 02:13.750 --> 02:19.610 From their original character, from their original history, they have 02:19.610 --> 02:25.570 preserved this character of the diary and or the link collection. 02:26.670 --> 02:31.890 In other words, they are deliberately subjective and as networked as 02:31.890 --> 02:31.890 possible. 02:33.550 --> 02:39.110 And what they also have, which is really great, are the different 02:39.110 --> 02:40.250 feedback functions. 02:40.250 --> 02:47.270 That means, in a block I have the possibility to comment, to rate, to 02:47.270 --> 02:48.150 share and so on. 02:49.990 --> 02:53.270 How many blocks there are, we do not know in the German-speaking area, 02:53.310 --> 02:54.590 because there is no registration obligation. 02:55.110 --> 03:00.530 Here I have given a quote from Jan Schmidt, who says there are several 03:00.530 --> 03:03.530 thousand, several hundred thousand even. 03:04.530 --> 03:10.210 The block search search from Google says there are about 450,000. 03:10.650 --> 03:14.510 But it can be assumed that many are also dead. 03:15.190 --> 03:16.270 So they are no longer running. 03:17.110 --> 03:23.270 What is interesting, however, is that the blogosphere, or blogging in 03:23.270 --> 03:30.790 Germany, is more like a shadow existence, what this quote from the old 03:30.790 --> 03:32.290 ECDF online study says. 03:32.290 --> 03:41.970 Only 1% of all users are bloggers who do this regularly, so at least 03:41.970 --> 03:43.470 once a week. 03:46.430 --> 03:49.890 In front of this background we look at the science blogs, i.e. 03:49.930 --> 03:56.250 blogs written by scientists or who have a specific scientific topic. 03:56.950 --> 04:01.270 And here, too, there seems to be a borderline in the German-speaking 04:01.270 --> 04:02.230 area. 04:03.130 --> 04:11.170 Here I also searched through Google for blog pages on various 04:11.170 --> 04:13.230 scientific topics. 04:14.210 --> 04:20.830 For example, I found 212 pages on particle physics, Stochastic 404, 04:21.070 --> 04:24.170 Hydromechanics 23 and here Anthropomatics 1. 04:26.730 --> 04:31.090 Some blogs are under portal roofs. 04:31.670 --> 04:34.130 Portals are great, of course, because they also have a specific 04:34.130 --> 04:39.030 structure and the blogger can immediately start blogging. 04:40.250 --> 04:41.510 The biggest are Science blogs. 04:44.510 --> 04:46.150 I don't have to say much about that. 04:53.120 --> 04:55.980 What makes a scientist a blogger? 04:56.840 --> 05:04.940 If you assume that a scientist fulfills our prejudices and you say, 05:05.040 --> 05:08.860 okay, scientists don't really like to share, scientists only have time 05:08.860 --> 05:15.660 for research and teaching, value traditional publications and are by 05:15.660 --> 05:16.920 God not online pioneers. 05:17.940 --> 05:19.740 Most of them are different. 05:22.000 --> 05:23.660 Nevertheless, scientists speak up. 05:23.800 --> 05:27.980 And here I have a very nice quote, which I also like to read aloud, by 05:27.980 --> 05:31.600 Alexander Knoll, a biologist here at KIT, who also blogs. 05:33.220 --> 05:38.440 He says, we bloggers post out of passion and deep conviction that the 05:38.440 --> 05:41.640 science of society, which finances us, is obligatory and thus also the 05:41.640 --> 05:43.120 dialogue with the public. 05:43.120 --> 05:47.860 Another aspect, and this is quite interesting, is that we scientists 05:47.860 --> 05:49.640 always fight for a bit of justification. 05:50.420 --> 05:54.200 So why do you research weeds and as a botanist don't you rather do 05:54.200 --> 05:55.640 something against world hunger? 05:55.960 --> 05:58.280 I can't say, read my papers. 05:59.080 --> 06:00.820 So you need different approaches. 06:01.940 --> 06:07.900 And on this quote you can already see the incredible advantages of 06:07.900 --> 06:08.320 blogging. 06:08.320 --> 06:14.180 They are simple, fast, up-to-date, spontaneous, multimedia, and they 06:14.180 --> 06:20.360 demand direct dialogue and explain the work of the scientist. 06:20.920 --> 06:22.240 Briefly on the topics. 06:24.220 --> 06:28.480 The variety of topics is so different from the scientific landscape 06:28.480 --> 06:28.960 itself. 06:30.160 --> 06:36.260 Of course, topics that are up-to-date, are more relevant than current 06:36.260 --> 06:37.000 ones. 06:37.550 --> 06:39.360 So permanent burners are always good. 06:41.280 --> 06:46.980 An example is, for example, the number of accesses after the disaster 06:46.980 --> 06:53.220 in Fukushima increased by more than 80% at Science Blogs. 06:54.440 --> 06:58.980 But also things that are up-to-date, like the fact that mathematician 06:58.980 --> 07:03.860 Thilo Küssner explained the 50 billion euro error of the Hyperion 07:03.860 --> 07:09.880 Estate Bank in his Matlock or that Florian Freistetter, an astronomer, 07:09.980 --> 07:13.420 reassures me that the world won't end up with the Inca calendar next 07:13.420 --> 07:13.720 year. 07:16.500 --> 07:21.580 The readership probably assumes that it is just as diverse as the 07:21.580 --> 07:23.460 variety of topics, but there are no studies here. 07:25.900 --> 07:30.460 So we don't know who is accessing these topics. 07:31.120 --> 07:31.880 I'll come back to that later. 07:34.200 --> 07:38.320 Back to the question of participation. 07:41.300 --> 07:43.560 I see it as a great opportunity. 07:44.180 --> 07:48.580 The user can discuss with the expert without any detours, ask him 07:48.580 --> 07:51.960 questions, comment on his opinion, whether it is good or bad. 07:51.960 --> 07:56.020 And this direct communication happens, and this is particularly 07:56.020 --> 07:59.380 important, not one-way street-like. 08:00.740 --> 08:07.920 That means the user is not just a passive reader with an opinion, but 08:07.920 --> 08:10.840 he is really an active imposter towards science. 08:11.720 --> 08:20.120 Here I have quoted Stefan Ramsdorff several times as a quote for this 08:20.120 --> 08:21.280 imposter. 08:26.120 --> 08:29.760 The subjectivity of a blog also promotes interaction and 08:29.760 --> 08:35.580 collaboration, according to the motto, this is your opinion, you 08:35.580 --> 08:39.900 scientists, this is my opinion, I lend, and together we may come to a 08:39.900 --> 08:41.440 new result. 08:43.460 --> 08:46.760 And this interaction leads to new hierarchies. 08:46.980 --> 08:48.900 We have already mentioned this several times today. 08:49.780 --> 08:54.100 The blogger and the user are equal, and they can discuss things 08:54.100 --> 08:58.520 together, discuss and relate. 08:59.660 --> 09:02.260 Simply promote the discourse. 09:05.380 --> 09:09.680 An example is, for example, oh, I can already see the red card, that's 09:09.680 --> 09:10.660 why I'm saying all examples. 09:13.020 --> 09:15.040 Dialogue does not always take place in a win-win situation. 09:15.260 --> 09:19.760 Often, as in real life, there are also scientific-ideological 09:19.760 --> 09:24.620 discussions that really depart from the factual path or from the 09:24.620 --> 09:24.940 loophole. 09:25.940 --> 09:27.920 But I think that's understandable too. 09:28.500 --> 09:30.000 I have three more slides. 09:30.840 --> 09:33.880 The other big chance I see is transparency. 09:34.720 --> 09:41.800 Here, too, there is an open access to research itself, not just to the 09:41.800 --> 09:43.560 results, we have already mentioned that. 09:45.140 --> 09:52.280 Processes are discussed and since the format blog is very personal, 09:52.680 --> 09:55.560 the personalization of the scientist also helps to increase the 09:55.560 --> 09:55.980 interest. 09:57.140 --> 10:02.060 So the scientist becomes a normal person and the laboratory becomes a 10:02.060 --> 10:03.720 normal workplace. 10:08.720 --> 10:13.640 Scientists are also credible, according to the motto, somehow I 10:13.640 --> 10:19.220 research this and that and with this and the results and no lobbyist 10:19.220 --> 10:21.700 or publisher tells me what I should actually write here. 10:23.160 --> 10:27.200 And here, too, I don't want to go too deep into the friction points 10:27.200 --> 10:29.120 with journalism. 10:29.440 --> 10:32.180 I'm a bit optimistic. 10:32.340 --> 10:36.720 I don't see the blogging scientists somehow threatening the 10:36.720 --> 10:41.900 journalists, because both directions have completely different 10:41.900 --> 10:42.260 approaches. 10:45.560 --> 10:48.100 So back to the starting point. 10:48.200 --> 10:52.420 What does this communication look like between scientists and 10:52.420 --> 10:52.760 laypeople? 10:53.240 --> 10:57.700 And in my opinion, you can't complain that there are missing 10:57.700 --> 11:00.820 opportunities to do public science on the Internet. 11:02.160 --> 11:10.280 But based on these quantitative weaknesses of the format blog, for 11:10.280 --> 11:16.140 example, it is worth complaining that so few laypeople and or 11:16.140 --> 11:20.580 scientists participate in this public science. 11:23.000 --> 11:26.160 And it is also difficult to say that this is just the beginning, 11:26.400 --> 11:29.100 because the format blog is actually quite old. 11:31.100 --> 11:36.780 That means something has to be done to get the readers and the 11:36.780 --> 11:37.840 scientists on board. 11:39.320 --> 11:41.960 As far as the readers are concerned, you have to understand them 11:41.960 --> 11:42.640 first. 11:43.000 --> 11:48.180 You have to know what they want, who they are or who they are not, why 11:48.180 --> 11:50.220 they read it or don't read it. 11:51.620 --> 11:56.600 And as far as the scientists are concerned, you have to recognize them 11:56.600 --> 12:02.540 digitally, in two ways. 12:03.880 --> 12:07.820 On the one hand, from the scientific community itself. 12:09.640 --> 12:12.380 This is probably also a generational issue. 12:13.580 --> 12:17.980 But above all, and this is what we in the InsideScience project have 12:17.980 --> 12:21.400 been pursuing since the institutions, and this is also what Klaus 12:21.400 --> 12:23.640 Rummler said a little bit. 12:23.900 --> 12:28.960 That means you have to offer the scientists platforms for change, also 12:28.960 --> 12:32.200 for the role allocation of institutions, scientists and the public. 12:35.000 --> 12:40.360 And from this one-way communication may also help a social media 12:40.360 --> 12:41.240 manager, I don't know. 12:43.900 --> 12:48.480 We have, this is really my last slide, set up a mini blog portal in 12:48.480 --> 12:53.540 our small InsideScience project to follow this. 12:54.840 --> 13:00.920 And interestingly, we invited scientists from the SFBs and noticed 13:00.920 --> 13:03.040 pretty quickly that an invitation was not enough. 13:03.740 --> 13:06.060 So you can't say, yes, here it is, do it. 13:07.340 --> 13:10.960 So it's a little bit more, you have to take it seriously, you have to 13:10.960 --> 13:13.800 make a little bit of fun, arouse curiosity. 13:14.680 --> 13:17.840 And you can only do that by really speaking, offering workshops, 13:18.740 --> 13:20.440 making meetings on this topic. 13:21.300 --> 13:22.280 And that's where I'm at. 13:22.580 --> 13:23.140 Thank you very much.