3 ms·

Maybe I’m being too dismissive, but this strikes me as an equivalent of existing-invention-but-using-a-computer software patents. I just don’t see how it’s part

by tobr 6y ago

Maybe I’m being too dismissive, but this strikes me as an equivalent of existing-invention-but-using-a-computer software patents. I just don’t see how it’s particularly newsworthy or interesting that an image shared on Twitter was involved in the discovery. It allowed for a headline that made me click, though.

wyattpeak 6y ago
I think you might be. Whatever its hype, Twitter (and its ilk) does enable a previously unheard of level of sharing of minor details. This fungus is exactly the sort of thing which would normally go missing in the vaults of a museum because the five people who ever saw it didn't recognise it as anything interesting. This is such a common phenomenon that trawling through museum collections is a non-trivial source of new species identifications. The fact that an image normally only seen by a few people should be shared to thousands, and hence a discovery made based on it, is significant because there were few avenues by which it could happen pre-social media.
wpietri 6y ago
The word news is literally the plural of new, as in new things. This is an new species discovered using a new method involving a relatively new communications medium. And in particular, it involves one of the strengths of this new medium: letting people share things with others that might be interested. A key difference between social media and older media is who gets to say yes to publication. For this photo to reach this researcher in a previous age, there would have been several people who had the ability to say no. And limited space would mean they'd have a strong incentive to say no. But now it just takes one person to say, "Here's a thing I think is interesting." Every reader also has their own editorial power; they can share and retweet. So for me, this is interesting because it's showing how the "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" adage applies to literal bugs. That the chaotic nature of Twitter is not just providing me with things I find interesting, but leading to actual scientific advance.

by tobr 6y ago

wyattpeak 6y ago

I think you might be. Whatever its hype, Twitter (and its ilk) does enable a previously unheard of level of sharing of minor details. This fungus is exactly the sort of thing which would normally go missing in the vaults of a museum because the five people who ever saw it didn't recognise it as anything interesting. This is such a common phenomenon that trawling through museum collections is a non-trivial source of new species identifications. The fact that an image normally only seen by a few people should be shared to thousands, and hence a discovery made based on it, is significant because there were few avenues by which it could happen pre-social media.

wpietri 6y ago

The word news is literally the plural of new, as in new things. This is an new species discovered using a new method involving a relatively new communications medium. And in particular, it involves one of the strengths of this new medium: letting people share things with others that might be interested. A key difference between social media and older media is who gets to say yes to publication. For this photo to reach this researcher in a previous age, there would have been several people who had the ability to say no. And limited space would mean they'd have a strong incentive to say no. But now it just takes one person to say, "Here's a thing I think is interesting." Every reader also has their own editorial power; they can share and retweet. So for me, this is interesting because it's showing how the "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" adage applies to literal bugs. That the chaotic nature of Twitter is not just providing me with things I find interesting, but leading to actual scientific advance.