* It's an online magazine
* It draws from news releases submitted by other leading universities and other research institutes
* They provide links to the original news release, as well as other links that would be useful for journalists
* "It's been compared to the "C-SPAN" approach, providing unedited science
* It also links to "major science media and other internet sources, as well as a collection of interesting science related-sites" (the latter courtesy of an OPEN SOURCE directory)
* You can browse an online encyclopedia (OPEN SOURCE Wiki project)
* You can get the top science news in an email bulletin
* It posts news releases FREE for universities and research institutes
* It includes not only news, but articles, images, videos, and book lists. All the subject matter is divided into "major" science categories.
This website really grabbed my interest. It integrates so many ideas and topics we covered this year in COMM 285. It's a magazine, which is a traditional media, but it's on a new media (internet). It ties in so many open source sites, promoting the idea that every one should have access to science. Browsing through the site, it's a big mess of hyperlinks. The tabs are pretty easy to use, but the layout could be a bit more user-friendly. You really need to search through it to find what you want, but you will get lost in here.
What do other people think of this website? Is it effective at helping reader's find what they need? How does it fit into science communication? I can see the Web of Science model being put into effect, since so many different medias are flowing into and out of this website. Check out the links at the bottom of the page "Awards" and "Editorial Staff." Do the awards really add to the credibility of the site? What about the credentials of the editors? Does this website do a better job of helping journalists find information to write an article more so than blogs? Is this site more reliable than blogs?
No comments:
Post a Comment