I’d agree that blogging offers a real opportunity to clarify one’s thoughts about whatever-it-is; and it’s also a way of sharing.

So on reflection I’d add a (c) to my conditions for non-problematic blogging, which is that the blogger should be prepared to publish all reasonable commentary on her / his blog, so the dialogue can develop.

If all these conditions are met, would most people blogs can have value?

Mind you, I would think that, wouldn’t I?

Keep up the good work!
Hilary

When I wrote that I had learnt pretty much everything I know about subject x from blog y, I failed to point out that one of the reasons these blogs were so educative is that they link to reliable sources and resources and include references. I feel a bit stupid for not pointing that out, so to try and make up for that mistake here’s some examples: http://shpalman.livejournal.com/10440.html has explanatory links throughout the text and relevant references appear at the end of the post. Gaylard’s main page – http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/ – has links to resources such as NIH, Cochrane and Bandolier under that EBM banner and links to resources like the Encyclopædia Britannica (this post: http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/seduced-by-water/).

“Blogging is an odd situation where people can say what they like and control what is written the messageboards.”
So true. Have you ever visited Dr Briffa’s blog? Or Nadine Dorries’s? Prime examples.

“On this basis, group blogs _may_ provide generally better quality than lone bloggers (auto-peer review), and bloggers who allow free comment (they have their respondants to answer to) would inevitably try harder to write better quality material (and probably have a higher degree of probity?)”
The point that group blogs may provide generally better quality due to peer-review is a fair one. On the other hand, peer-review is certainly no guarantee of quality – JACM and Homeopathy are both peer-reviewed journals. I suppose it depends who your peers are.
Re bloggers who allow free comment trying to write better quality material and perhaps having a higher degree of probity – I may be biased but I would like to say I agree with this point.

“I just don’t think enough people have the skill-set to critically appraise individual blogs to assess their factual content.”
Once again, I am in agreement with you. It’s sad that not enough people are able to critically appraise blogs, but I’m not sure I’d know how to begin addressing this. Food for thought though.

Cheers,
jdc

It is perhaps a dangerous thing to learn all you know from a single source- you will inevitably (without very careful evaluation) pick up any bias from that single source.

Blogging is an odd situation where people can say what they like and control what is written the messageboards.

The lack of ‘peer review’ is the problem. Perhaps the peer review here is the responder but there’s no guarantee of ‘quality’ respondants…

On this basis, group blogs _may_ provide generally better quality than lone bloggers (auto-peer review), and bloggers who allow free comment (they have their respondants to answer to) would inevitably try harder to write better quality material (and probably have a higher degree of probity?)

My point is people will always pick up from blogs. I just don’t think enough people have the skill-set to critically appraise individual blogs to assess their factual content.

it specifically limits the comment to “an individual’s blog,”

Individual blogs can be incredibly educational. I learnt pretty much everything I know about homeopathy and physics from shpalman’s blog What the hell is this? and almost everything I know about the philosophy of science comes from (or via) AP Gaylard’s blog I canna’ change the laws of physics. I see no reason to privilege group blogs over individual blogs.

It is saying that running/hosting a blog cannot be considered as having “educational value” **sufficient to count as fulfilling the requirements for an organisation to be considered an educational charity**. In fact, it doesn’t even say that much: it specifically limits the comment to “an individual’s blog,” presuambly leaving it up to the organisation to argue that a group blog is of educational value.

Perhaps this site should make it’s way into required reading for medical students…

I appreciate that this has a lot to do with my own motivation, interest, and so on. However, it is also a reflection of (a) the quality of some of the stuff out there and (b) the fact that when you are reading a blog the sources are usually linked and/or readily available (well, basically it’s a Google).

Looking at the definitions used, I see no good reason why some blogs should not be educational: for example, Ben has gone into some detail in explaining statistics, evidence-based medicine etc, both on this blog and in public and mainstream media debates. On the other hand, I can think of a number of more ‘conventional’ charities which claim an ‘educational’ purpose while producing educational material which is so riddled with errors and fallacies as to be of little or no educational value.

Of course, there are lots of terrible blogs and excellent ‘conventional’ educational charities. However, the Charity Commission should critically consider the roles played by all of these organisations when deciding on whether they are entitled to charitable status, instead of starting from a negative position re individual blogs at the same time as accepting a number of dubious ‘educational’ organisations as charities.

This is all pretty academic for now: at least, I don’t know of any blogger who is considering claiming charitable status for an individual blog. However, I can see this becoming a more popular path to take in the future, and would have hoped that the Charity Commission could have taken a more constructive position on this issue.

Are you arguing that Bad Science or the many and wonderful blogs linked on the left-hand side of this page should all be given charitable status? If you are, I think you’re wrong (where would it end? How many one-man charities can the state support?) If you’re not, then you don’t actually disagree with the report, you’ve just taken offence because they use vaguely insulting language about one of your favourite topics (and as I said, in context of the definitions they give, it’s not even that insulting).

Children are now ‘cut and pasting’ essays while having no clue who wrote what they’re copying or why.

It is quite often much easier to find out about the author of a blog than to discover who funded the publication of a particular article or commissioned a TV show. For example Ben quite plainly reveals his educational and work history on this site, which gives you a pretty good idea where he’s coming from his own perspective and with a quick google you can also find out what else he’s written and what other people think of him.

In light of this perhaps blogs should be used, not only to find out (possibly quite) interesting or important things, but also as ground to teach da yoof how to contextualise and critique proper like.

Breach, not breech. Why can’t you bloggers get things right? No educative value…

Because children are too young, aren’t they? It would be unfair to expose them to frightening possibilities like the fact that their teacher (or the nice man from the government) might be wrong. They might become confused and develop antisocial tendencies like questioning authority. Fortunately, we have drugs for that now.

Interactive “web2″ stuff is a big trendy thing in schools at the moment, with loads of ideas being tried.

There’s 80,000 educational wikis on wikispaces
http://www.wikispaces.com/site/for/teachers100K

Of course diarising on the internet isn’t a worthwhile endeavour, so thank god they’ve got the Samuel Pepys Trust to advance education on their behalf.

My frustration is the apparent confusion between the medium and the message.

Blogs are simply a tool for conveying information – the education quality and value of that information is as variable as the educational quality and value of any television, radio or book.

At its simpest digital media literacy is such a curious and new phenomenon that there are many people who are simply illiterate when it comes to digital/social media.

If someone does not take time to use or at the very least appreciate this new form of literacy they are in no position to judge its validity. It’s the equivalent of asking someone who can’t read to tell us how good a book is.