B
Ben Goldacre
bengoldacre.posterous.com · Personal blog · on HN since 2010
Ben Goldacre's secondary blog of short links and asides, kept apart from his Bad Science writing on medicine and statistics.
What HN saysHN commenters note it holds items too long for Twitter, and link his post criticizing the BBC for not linking journal articles in science stories.
17HN people shared it
3linked it in comments
16stories submitted
139story points
14 years agolast shared
2010people per year2026
Most-shared posts
- 1Locations of Ancient Woolworths Stores follow Precise Geometrical Pattern1 people · 89 points · first shared 2010 · 16 comments on HN
- 2Nerd saves entire BBC archive for $3.991 people · 10 points · first shared 2011 · discussion on HN
- 3If you've read this far, mention 'bananas' in your comment1 people · 7 points · first shared 2011 · discussion on HN
- 4Robot dustbin. Put this on KickStarter immediately.1 people · 5 points · first shared 2012 · discussion on HN
- 5Bad Science author Ben Goldacre: It's time for a VPN1 people · 4 points · first shared 2012 · discussion on HN
- 6"Politicians use evidence and statistics as narrative devices."1 people · 3 points · first shared 2011 · discussion on HN
- 7Three things we have to teach in schools1 people · 3 points · first shared 2011 · discussion on HN
- 8Protest the pope at 1:30: why?1 people · 3 points · first shared 2010 · 2 comments on HN
- 9Magnificent application of game theory on a live game show1 people · 3 points · first shared 2012 · discussion on HN
- 10How to get your view into a newspaper as an academic: 10 easy steps.1 people · 3 points · first shared 2012 · discussion on HN
- 11The physics of the My Little Pony TV series1 people · 3 points · first shared 2011 · discussion on HN
- 12Ooh yeah fluid dynamics1 people · 2 points · first shared 2012 · discussion on HN
- 13The maths of clinical decision making [video]1 people · 1 points · first shared 2011 · discussion on HN
- 14What does the Sienna Miller / Virgin story tell us about data security?1 people · 1 points · first shared 2012 · discussion on HN
- 15Problems with statistics in psychology and neuroscience research1 people · 1 points · first shared 2012 · 1 comments on HN
What HN people wrote when they linked it
shrikant · 2011-03-12
He also has a secondary blog where he posts "things that are too long to post on twitter and not clever enough to post on his main blog": http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/
tokenadult · 2011-03-19
Our journalists routinely interview primary sources
That would be good journalistic practice, but that is not what Ben Goldacre is talking about in the blog post submitted here on HN. He is talking about news stories that purport to report on the result of a research study and what he is looking for is a citation (or a link, as appropriate to the journalistic medium) to the published research study. Not doing that doesn't pass the smell test for Goldacre.
http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/if-you-dont-link-to-primary-sources-y…
Of course, even if the published study is cited, it still has to be examined carefully,
http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
but there is no reason to hide the published study from the consumer of the journalistic report. You are referring to persons as "sources," the same way I did when I was a journalist, while Goldacre is referring to publications as sources.
v21 · 2010-08-31
Even the BBC, usually so good, is terrible about this. And it's not like people haven't told them, they're just terribly intransigent about it.
http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/trying-to-get-the-bbc-to-link-to-jour… is Ben Goldacre writing in to the Beeb.
He later had a response ( http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/no-movement-on-the-bbcs-bizarre-links… ):
"Many thanks for your message, and interest in the site.
The issue of linking to specific research papers, rather than the journals in which they appear is something with which we have long wrestled.
Linking to the journal gives the reader the chance to look at the source of the story, understand something of the wider context and get an idea of whether the research is peer reviewed. It also gives a chance to read associated information in editorials, etc, which often may be of interest. It is also a way for us to credit the journal.
We accept that linking to the specific research paper itself is often a desirable thing to do, and it is certainly something we will try to do more of in future. However, we don't believe that it is something we can do on every occasion - for instance many papers are available on the web via subscription only, while others give only an Abstract summary. In these instances, the vast majority of our readers would not be able to read the full papers, without paying for access, even if we provided the relevant link.
In addition, we do have finite resources, and our view is that…