4 ms·

After the Why We Sleep fiasco I'd quite like a site which peer reviews all the references in a book (could be crowd sourced wiki-style) individually. And then t

by joshvm 7y ago

After the Why We Sleep fiasco I'd quite like a site which peer reviews all the references in a book (could be crowd sourced wiki-style) individually. And then the book, or each chapter, gets a rating for factual correctness.

eatonphil 7y ago
That is a good point. Also reminds me I'd like a site that lists all the references in a book so I can more easily search them on the computer and not necessarily need to even own the book.
- cloverich 7y ago
  That's a good thought. The next step is going in reverse, selecting the best referenced material and auto generating a quality non-fiction book from it. That's my dream.
- joshvm 7y ago
  This is how conventional journal publishing works, so I don't see why this couldn't be implemented for books which provide a bibliography.
vardhanw 7y ago
Would you minding pointing to what the fiasco was about. I read the book based on all round positive reviews and recommendations.
- burkaman 7y ago
  https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/ https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/
  - odie88 7y ago
    There have been a few discussions about it on HN as well, where Alexey Guyzey, author of the criticism linked, joins in on the conversation: (4 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21546850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21546850 (1 month ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22419958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22419958
- treerock 7y ago
  I'd guess this https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/12/27/why-we-sleep-data-manipulation-a-smoking-gun/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/12/27/why-we-sle...
- joshvm 7y ago
  I did too, and it turns out a lot of the claims are either made up (the literature doesn't support the claims, or doesn't seem to exist at all!), potentially harmful or misleading (modified plots to suit the narrative). In hindsight some of the claims are just weird, like saying you can measure the effect of one bad night's sleep months down the line. On the whole it got people talking about sleep, which isn't a bad thing. But, the peer review (see sibling posts) only looked at one chapter I think, so God knows what else is wrong. I don't think anyone is doubting that you should probably get a bit more sleep, try not to blast blue lights in your face and get into a routine. Standard sleep hygiene stuff.
toomuchtodo 7y ago
Would Wikipedia not be the best place to do this (an objective evaluation of the literature)? With links deep linking into the book with Open Library (and Internet Archive initiative)?

by joshvm 7y ago

eatonphil 7y ago

That is a good point. Also reminds me I'd like a site that lists all the references in a book so I can more easily search them on the computer and not necessarily need to even own the book.

cloverich 7y ago
That's a good thought. The next step is going in reverse, selecting the best referenced material and auto generating a quality non-fiction book from it. That's my dream.
joshvm 7y ago
This is how conventional journal publishing works, so I don't see why this couldn't be implemented for books which provide a bibliography.

vardhanw 7y ago

Would you minding pointing to what the fiasco was about. I read the book based on all round positive reviews and recommendations.

burkaman 7y ago
https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/ https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/
- odie88 7y ago
  There have been a few discussions about it on HN as well, where Alexey Guyzey, author of the criticism linked, joins in on the conversation: (4 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21546850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21546850 (1 month ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22419958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22419958
treerock 7y ago
I'd guess this https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/12/27/why-we-sleep-data-manipulation-a-smoking-gun/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/12/27/why-we-sle...
joshvm 7y ago
I did too, and it turns out a lot of the claims are either made up (the literature doesn't support the claims, or doesn't seem to exist at all!), potentially harmful or misleading (modified plots to suit the narrative). In hindsight some of the claims are just weird, like saying you can measure the effect of one bad night's sleep months down the line. On the whole it got people talking about sleep, which isn't a bad thing. But, the peer review (see sibling posts) only looked at one chapter I think, so God knows what else is wrong. I don't think anyone is doubting that you should probably get a bit more sleep, try not to blast blue lights in your face and get into a routine. Standard sleep hygiene stuff.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Would Wikipedia not be the best place to do this (an objective evaluation of the literature)? With links deep linking into the book with Open Library (and Internet Archive initiative)?