3 ms·
Once again, they should've linked to the more enlightening original article, available here: http://weblamp.princeton.edu/~psych/psychology/research/pronin/publ
by tuukkah 18y ago
Once again, they should've linked to the more enlightening original article, available here: http://weblamp.princeton.edu/~psych/psychology/research/pronin/publications.php http://weblamp.princeton.edu/~psych/psychology/research/pron...
- jerf 18y agoYou might as well go whole hog and link to the PDF: http://weblamp.princeton.edu/~psych/psychology/research/pronin/pubs/2008%20Mental%20Motion.pdf http://weblamp.princeton.edu/~psych/psychology/research/pron...
- tuukkah 18y agoDepends on whether one considers it polite to link to a pdf file instead of a web page with context.
- alabut 18y agoNot really - the academic papers aren't particularly readable and the summarized news article provides good context for other research as well.
- tuukkah 18y agoI'm not saying science journalism is useless, but the way of the web is (should be!) to link to the source and more information. It's not uncommon for the popularisation to lead to alternating "X is good", "X is bad" reporting, while in reality the researchers themselves wouldn't claim they've settled the issue. If you are interested in psychology, you want to read the original article - this one is readable too :-)
- alabut 18y agoI wonder if I'm misunderstanding you - maybe you're saying the news article itself should've linked to the original paper? If so, then I definitely agree. I read your comment as a criticism of the post on HN, that the title should've linked to the academic paper rather than the news.
- tuukkah 18y agoGood point. With 'them', I meant to refer to Scientific American.