4 ms·

I think "bullying" is a reductive term for what's actually happening. I think the point trying to be conveyed is that there is a certain decline in the author's

I think "bullying" is a reductive term for what's actually happening. I think the point trying to be conveyed is that there is a certain decline in the author's personal status when they get holes punched in their publications.

zerocrates 10y ago
Sounds like a nice incentive to double-check before publishing.
- cushychicken 10y ago
  I mean, it's open source software, right? Nothing stopping you from downloading it and running before publishing. I view that as a pretty solid way to make the science better all by itself.
M_Grey 10y ago
As it should be, when you publish a stupid error that can substantially alter your conclusions.
- cushychicken 10y ago
  I'm not sure that's the healthiest attitude. The pursuit here is knowledge, not prestige. Getting personal doesn't do anything for the higher goal. I read once that the attitude in NASA over Space Shuttle code was very focused not on who wrote the bug, but how to fix the bug. The thought was that who caused the failure was not nearly as important as preventing the failure, as "failure" in that context generally meant loss of human life.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Of course it turned out that NASA's two biggest failures were human/cultural, and which led to the loss of two shuttles. Besides, as you say it's not about prestige, it's about knowledge, and if you're publishing something with basic math errors, it leads to questions about whether you'd know "knowledge" if it bit you.
    - cushychicken 10y ago
      Right, but there's something to be said for fostering a culture where fixing errors - in schematics, in research, in source code, whatever - is considered more valuable than assigning blame.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        Agreed, but when you're dealing with a culture that abhors critical thinking and sees something harmless like this bot as "bullying", we're a long way from that culture of fixing errors.

zerocrates 10y ago

Sounds like a nice incentive to double-check before publishing.

cushychicken 10y ago
I mean, it's open source software, right? Nothing stopping you from downloading it and running before publishing. I view that as a pretty solid way to make the science better all by itself.

M_Grey 10y ago

As it should be, when you publish a stupid error that can substantially alter your conclusions.

cushychicken 10y ago
I'm not sure that's the healthiest attitude. The pursuit here is knowledge, not prestige. Getting personal doesn't do anything for the higher goal. I read once that the attitude in NASA over Space Shuttle code was very focused not on who wrote the bug, but how to fix the bug. The thought was that who caused the failure was not nearly as important as preventing the failure, as "failure" in that context generally meant loss of human life.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Of course it turned out that NASA's two biggest failures were human/cultural, and which led to the loss of two shuttles. Besides, as you say it's not about prestige, it's about knowledge, and if you're publishing something with basic math errors, it leads to questions about whether you'd know "knowledge" if it bit you.
  - cushychicken 10y ago
    Right, but there's something to be said for fostering a culture where fixing errors - in schematics, in research, in source code, whatever - is considered more valuable than assigning blame.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Agreed, but when you're dealing with a culture that abhors critical thinking and sees something harmless like this bot as "bullying", we're a long way from that culture of fixing errors.