[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re:Netizens expose scientific fraud in South Korea

[Ronda]

On 12/30/05, David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:

> With Ronda's posting of theses links, I wonder if it is time to take our understanding of 'netizen' a next step.

Nice - it would be good to look at the netizen identity and the
development it has gone through in the past 12 years since people
first started using the word to express the consciousness that we are
net.citizens.

>(I am unable to open the first)

Which article were you unable to open - was it the OhmyNews link? (This the the
article in a South Korean newspaper)

I have given the link below again. It worked when I tried it. If it
doesn't work for you please let me know and if you are interested I
can send the article, either individually or to the list.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=266352&r
el_no=1

The title of this article is

South Korean 'Netizens of the Year'
The online scientific community and Internet media challenge old hierarchies

If you can read this article, it explains in a more developed way the
role of the online scientific community in exposing the scientific
fraud. The journal Science missed the fraud in its peer review policy.
It is important to understand the implications of this.

>The second article  does itself speak in terms of 'netizens.'

> But it begins by identifying three online groups who participated in
> uncovering evidence of the fraud.  The names of the groups make clear
> that the participants are members of various sub-branches in the
> scientific community there.
>
> Then we might say that these individuals, first, consider their
> 'group membership' to be in some scientific community.  The online
> postings simply serve as a more powerful means of exchange among the
> group members.  But group membership remains some subset of the
> scientific world.
>
> Are we the (pure) netizens, devoted to the future of the medium? so
> that others are users of the tools, while their membership remains in
> a local community?  Or, does that Korean scientist, when posting to
> his/her group, feel dual membership, both in a local scientific group
> and as netizen?

Interesting question.

But if it weren't that the online scientific community had access to
the Internet and to being online, then it is possible they wouldn't
have succeeded in exposing the fraud.

The fact that they were online and able to post online and anonymously
was very important to their achievement, as far as I understand.

Also others in the netizen community help to spread the scientific
analysis of the paper in other online forums and blogs and online
media.

(I have just been working on a paper about the interconnection of the
Internet and democracy in South Korea. It is in a draft form, but if
anyone is interested I would
be glad to send a copy for comment.)

>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack's scores, on either side of the ledger, could
> then be either a measurement of our tools or, in the broader
> interpretation, score-keeping among the groups.
>
But what Jean-Louis Fullsack's comment leaves out, is that without the
Net and the Netizen, the fraudulent paper by Prof Hwang would have
still been accepted by the U.S. journal Science and propagated by the
other media as an important scientific discovery.

It is just without the Internet and the netizens the fraud is less
likely to have been uncovered.

Thanks for the comments

It does seem that what has happened in South Korea in uncovering the
fraud in Science is very important, and the mainstream press reporting
on this leaves out this aspect totally. (I have written an email to
bbc about their leaving it out but didn't get any response.)


> David

Ronda

________________________________________

-
Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook