I'm trying to tweak the html of a page with headings in so that there's a heading, then on the next line without any white space, the next bit of text appears immediately - like this.
Heading
Fascinating text.
rather than what I'm getting which is
Heading
Fascinating text with white space.
It could be that (a) this has been pre-set in the style sheets and I need to go there to amend or (b) a consequence of using the h tags for a heading.
Normally I'd be tempted just to use font size to sort this out as that makes the words look exactly the same but eliminates their heading-ness. However from a usability perspective this is a bit of a no-no as I really want to avoid setting text sizes and h tags are probably better.
It just looks a bit ugly.
If it's a consequence of how html works then there's not much I can do about it and if it's a consequence of the style sheets then I don't know enough about it to fix it and will have a word with the web designer people. But if anyone has any ideas on alternative (but appropriate for usability) tags...
Friday, 30 April 2010
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Amnesia and computer passwords
This one's a bit rambly and possibly slightly daft :)
I'm still using a variant of the password that I first received in 1992/3 when the Institute of Psychiatry (where I studied neuroscience) distributed randomly-generated passwords to staff and students so they could log on and use the network. I thought it was probably a better password than one I could think up myself and periodically I swap a couple of letters around. More recently I started work at UCL and was blessed with two alphanumeric strings, for my main UCL account and one for the Computer Science network.
Personally I find these passwords very easy to remember - obviously I have to attend to them a bit as they don't exactly roll off the tongue - but no harder than a phone number that I want to make note of. I also know off by heart all sorts of bank and NI numbers and other administrivia codes. I don't generally carry these around in my head (well, obviously I do but...) though whenever prodded by a blank form or a blinking cursor - out they come.
My fingers, on a keyboard, will type out a password and it seems sometimes to be almost unconscious - which I suppose is the same for everyone. ?
This made me wonder what happens in the case of someone who has amnesia. Probably I should have paid better attention in those neuroscience classes.
Actually, what I'm interested in isn't so much the processes of forgetting memories (retrograde amnesia) or the inability to create new ones (anterograde amnesia), but the ways in which someone with (retrograde) amnesia might be 'managed', as in 'given opportunities to remember things'. What questions are asked of them and what situations are they put in to test different types of memory?
In films people who've had a bump on the head are usually asked for the current president / prime minister, or what year it is. I've no idea if hospitals around the UK are asking these questions or if there are much better questions to ask.
What I'm really wondering is... are people who've had a traumatic brain injury and exhibit memory loss (or those who are 'found wandering') placed in front of a computer with a screen showing all the social media and email things (twitter, facebook, gmail) that one can log in to?
It might be utter guff but I'm intrigued by the idea that I might forget my name and gibber uselessly when you ask for it, but plonk me in front of the Twitter login and... ping... there we are ;)
I'm still using a variant of the password that I first received in 1992/3 when the Institute of Psychiatry (where I studied neuroscience) distributed randomly-generated passwords to staff and students so they could log on and use the network. I thought it was probably a better password than one I could think up myself and periodically I swap a couple of letters around. More recently I started work at UCL and was blessed with two alphanumeric strings, for my main UCL account and one for the Computer Science network.
Personally I find these passwords very easy to remember - obviously I have to attend to them a bit as they don't exactly roll off the tongue - but no harder than a phone number that I want to make note of. I also know off by heart all sorts of bank and NI numbers and other administrivia codes. I don't generally carry these around in my head (well, obviously I do but...) though whenever prodded by a blank form or a blinking cursor - out they come.
My fingers, on a keyboard, will type out a password and it seems sometimes to be almost unconscious - which I suppose is the same for everyone. ?
This made me wonder what happens in the case of someone who has amnesia. Probably I should have paid better attention in those neuroscience classes.
Actually, what I'm interested in isn't so much the processes of forgetting memories (retrograde amnesia) or the inability to create new ones (anterograde amnesia), but the ways in which someone with (retrograde) amnesia might be 'managed', as in 'given opportunities to remember things'. What questions are asked of them and what situations are they put in to test different types of memory?
In films people who've had a bump on the head are usually asked for the current president / prime minister, or what year it is. I've no idea if hospitals around the UK are asking these questions or if there are much better questions to ask.
What I'm really wondering is... are people who've had a traumatic brain injury and exhibit memory loss (or those who are 'found wandering') placed in front of a computer with a screen showing all the social media and email things (twitter, facebook, gmail) that one can log in to?
It might be utter guff but I'm intrigued by the idea that I might forget my name and gibber uselessly when you ask for it, but plonk me in front of the Twitter login and... ping... there we are ;)
Monday, 26 April 2010
I'm still a bit rubbish at stats
I seem to suffer from a bit of a mental block with statistics, despite being a fan of Ben Goldacre, reading around the subject and attending classes on it. For some reason even though I can grasp it when I am in the middle of learning it, the knowledge seeps out at an alarming rate. I more or less have to start from scratch whenever I meet a new article.
Hopeless. But let's remember all the other things I'm good at :) Peculiarly I managed to get a first in statistics at university (though this was a modular exam at first year level and open book at that) but have really let the side down since then.
Abstracts don't help, writing things in a very paragraphy sort of way when what I really need is to see things written out line by line...
Effect of Valsartan on the Incidence of Diabetes and Cardiovascular Events
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/362/16/1477
Results The cumulative incidence of diabetes was 33.1% in the valsartan group, as compared with 36.8% in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.92; P (less than) 0.001).> placebo, did not significantly reduce the incidence of either the extended cardiovascular outcome (14.5% vs. 14.8%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.07; P=0.43) or the core cardiovascular outcome (8.1% vs. 8.1%; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.14; P=0.85).
But what I need is something more like this:
Results
The cumulative incidence of diabetes was 33.1% in the valsartan group,
as compared with 36.8% in the placebo group
(hazard ratio in the valsartan group, 0.86;
95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.92;
P<0.001). p="0.43)" p="0.85).
Conclusions Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance and cardiovascular disease or risk factors, the use of valsartan for 5 years, along with lifestyle modification, led to a relative reduction of 14% in the incidence of diabetes but did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097786 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)
Actually that still doesn't help very much, I'm still a bit at sea. At this point I try applying mathematical functions to some of the available figures (basically dividing one number by another) to see if I get anywhere. I'm vaguely cheered to have spotted that 0.96 might be related to 14%...
If it's any help, I'm useless at reading maps too though I am very good at writing instructions - and delighted to hear that Mark Miodownik's lovely programme "How to write an instruction manual" has been uploaded to the @Speechification vault.
Is there an online journal club for remedial stats?
Hopeless. But let's remember all the other things I'm good at :) Peculiarly I managed to get a first in statistics at university (though this was a modular exam at first year level and open book at that) but have really let the side down since then.
Abstracts don't help, writing things in a very paragraphy sort of way when what I really need is to see things written out line by line...
Effect of Valsartan on the Incidence of Diabetes and Cardiovascular Events
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/362/16/1477
Results The cumulative incidence of diabetes was 33.1% in the valsartan group, as compared with 36.8% in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.92; P (less than) 0.001).> placebo, did not significantly reduce the incidence of either the extended cardiovascular outcome (14.5% vs. 14.8%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.07; P=0.43) or the core cardiovascular outcome (8.1% vs. 8.1%; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.14; P=0.85).
But what I need is something more like this:
Results
The cumulative incidence of diabetes was 33.1% in the valsartan group,
as compared with 36.8% in the placebo group
(hazard ratio in the valsartan group, 0.86;
95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.92;
P<0.001). p="0.43)" p="0.85).
Conclusions Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance and cardiovascular disease or risk factors, the use of valsartan for 5 years, along with lifestyle modification, led to a relative reduction of 14% in the incidence of diabetes but did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097786 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)
Actually that still doesn't help very much, I'm still a bit at sea. At this point I try applying mathematical functions to some of the available figures (basically dividing one number by another) to see if I get anywhere. I'm vaguely cheered to have spotted that 0.96 might be related to 14%...
If it's any help, I'm useless at reading maps too though I am very good at writing instructions - and delighted to hear that Mark Miodownik's lovely programme "How to write an instruction manual" has been uploaded to the @Speechification vault.
Is there an online journal club for remedial stats?
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Healthy Journalism: challenges and solutions - seminar from Patient Information Forum, at Wellcome Trust
On Tuesday (20 April 2010) I went to the Healthy Journalism event from the Patient Information Forum (PiF), hosted at the Wellcome Trust. There were delicious cheese straws. On Wednesday I started writing this post on the little Notes app that comes bundled with iPhone, and then emailed it to myself. It's rather useful but my touch typing on iPhone isn't as accurate
as on a full sized keyboard so the fiddly bit is in rectifying the typos, apologies if some are missed.
-------------
Seminar - Healthy Journalism: challenges and solutions
20 April 2010, 6pm, Wellcome Trust, London.
* Understand the challenges facing healthcare journalists
* Gain deeper understanding of what constitutes evidence
* Identify ways to avoid misreporting
* Meet up to share and learn from each other’s experiences
Sessions include:
* Making healthcare reporting more accurate - Jacqui Thornton, Former Health Editor, The Sun
* How scientists can help journalists- Ginny Barbour, Chief Editor PLoS Medicine, Public Library of Science
* Evidence: understanding it and reporting it - Andrew Booth, Head of Information Services at the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield
-------------
The Patient Information Forum, or PiF, is an organisation that isn't actually public facing. It works with organisations (thinking about it now, I suppose it's like one of those 'business to business' orgs) which produce their own consumer information in a health context. That can include pharmaceutical companies producing Patient Information Leaflets (PILs), the NHS which produces great quantities of patient info, and medical charities / patient groups which focus on particular conditions.
About PiF
http://www.pifonline.org.uk/about-pif/
Our task was to look for solutions to the perceived problem that health information, for example how risk of developing a condition or appropriateness of spending money on a drug, isn't always presented in the news media in the most appropriate way. But mostly it was to find a bit of 'common ground', hear others' perspectives and generally try a bit of engagement.
Having an interest in this sort of thing, and an obvious bias - I notice the bad stories more because they generate the calls and emails - I was pleased to get a place.
Firstly, some observations of my own. Often a story is perfectly clearly written but the headline lets it down. Or there's a throwaway brief para which contains an otherwise minor error but in context gives the wrong impression. I don't think that view is going to startle anyone.
What you *might* be less aware of is how wrongly people can apprehend, or remember, a story they've read in the newspapers - although if you think about it, not really that much of a surprise. Probably someone's done some research on this but I confess I am ignorant of it.
People have rung in wanting to know about something they read "last month in the papers", only for me to find that it was actually *months* ago, my record for the longest gap is three and a half years. Memories - not so reliable.
Even where the article is recent, and clear, I've found that some people just get the wrong end of the stick - they seem to misread the article or see something that isn't there. Clearly newspapers and journalists can't be blamed for everything.
Others have written very well on some of the minor and the more serious challenges facing science journalism, looking at 'internal' faults, 'systemic' faults (and the relationship between the two) and outside pressures.
The format was a series of presentations followed by being split into discussion groups - where I had an opportunity to mention these thoughts and hear from others.
Quite a lot of interesting info was generated in this discussion and I'm glad someone else was 'scribing' it for us. Then we returned to our seats, and it was in this interval that we discovered the cheese straws so the second half was slightly munchier than the first.
I'm not going to write about the individual presentations because (a) I think PiF are going to report on them anyway and (b) I've not written them up yet, but I might in future.
In summing up Mark Duman said he felt we'd all raised plenty of issues and problems, but not so much by way of solutions, but this is what he considered to be the key points for consideration and addressing.
1. Quality of press releases
This is where scientists and press offices can make sure that stories are not presented misleadingly at source, avoiding claiming more for the evidence than is warranted. For every example of dodgy reporting it seems there's an example of a dodgy press release.
2. Science training for journalists
This refers to money (possibly) being made available to train new journalists in how science works, following Fiona Fox's report (one of several reports arising from BIS's investigatiin of science and society). There's also the possibility of science training for current journalists but I think it was determined that this might be met with low enthusiasm - it's potentially a bit insulting but few who are on a busy news desk have the luxury of time to get involved with Continuing Professional Development.
3. Self-policing
The example was given of the PMCPA which monitors pharmaceutical companies' infractions of the ABPI code. This sets pharmaceutical company agsinst pharmaceutical company as they try to do each other over, for being a bit naughty in their advertising etc. Doctors can make complaints about pharma reps and advertising too. Ought papers to snitch on one another
when they spot mistakes? Do they do this? Seems a bit unworkable to me.
4. Develop a relationship - take them to lunch
This one is aimed at press folk in charities - make sure you're developing your working relationships with journalists; be available. Having never worked in a press office I've no idea what goes on so can't comment usefully here.
5. Assisting the public in critical appeaisal
This one is probably the most 'deficit model' of the lot, but I'd always thought the deficit model was more about the mistaken belief that if people know more about, or understand, science better then they will like and support it more. In the case of critical appraisal I can't help thinking that this would be a useful skill for more people and I wouldn't bleat too
much if this was implemented.
Suggestions included charities' websites having information on things to watch out for (I'm a fan of this and mentioned Cancer Research UK's ace science blog which does have a section on this) such as 'be wary when you see the word 'cure'. As a corollary there was also the suggestion that journalists might have a list of words to avoid, similar to the highly amusing list of words and phrases local government is not supposed to use when presenting info to the public, including wise avoidance of the phrase 'predictors of beaconicity'. I don't think forbidding words will help and I think 'cure' has a place in discussions on how a therapycould develop, but context is everything.
6. Encourage feedback
If you spot a good article, say so. If you see something less good, say so too. The first presentation, by a journalist, also raised this as being useful. If you're disappointed that an article gives too much weight to one side etc you may find that the journalist who wrote it is on your side and found themselves saying the same thing to their editor, who overruled them.
Your complaint might be a little ammunition against this in future.
7. Asking for links to primary sources - build a demand
There's already been some online discussion on the benefits of linking to primary sources, but it may not get very far if people don't keep up the support for this. It's good if people can check the story behind the story themselves, and if the story is very speculative and hasn't actually been published anywhere then this can be useful info (a 'primary source unavailable' sort of thing).
Living in Blackheath, and loathing the underground, I generally scarper sharpish once evening events finish so I didn't do much in the way of networking but it was nice to see old pals (@ayasawada) and meet new ones (Jen).
as on a full sized keyboard so the fiddly bit is in rectifying the typos, apologies if some are missed.
-------------
Seminar - Healthy Journalism: challenges and solutions
20 April 2010, 6pm, Wellcome Trust, London.
* Understand the challenges facing healthcare journalists
* Gain deeper understanding of what constitutes evidence
* Identify ways to avoid misreporting
* Meet up to share and learn from each other’s experiences
Sessions include:
* Making healthcare reporting more accurate - Jacqui Thornton, Former Health Editor, The Sun
* How scientists can help journalists- Ginny Barbour, Chief Editor PLoS Medicine, Public Library of Science
* Evidence: understanding it and reporting it - Andrew Booth, Head of Information Services at the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield
-------------
The Patient Information Forum, or PiF, is an organisation that isn't actually public facing. It works with organisations (thinking about it now, I suppose it's like one of those 'business to business' orgs) which produce their own consumer information in a health context. That can include pharmaceutical companies producing Patient Information Leaflets (PILs), the NHS which produces great quantities of patient info, and medical charities / patient groups which focus on particular conditions.
About PiF
http://www.pifonline.org.uk/about-pif/
- Do you produce information for patients and the public about their health?
- Do you want to keep up to date with new developments in this area, develop your skills and feel supported in your work?
- Is your organisation passionate about the benefits of high quality health information for everyone?
- Then the Patient Information Forum (PiF) is your organisation.
Our task was to look for solutions to the perceived problem that health information, for example how risk of developing a condition or appropriateness of spending money on a drug, isn't always presented in the news media in the most appropriate way. But mostly it was to find a bit of 'common ground', hear others' perspectives and generally try a bit of engagement.
Having an interest in this sort of thing, and an obvious bias - I notice the bad stories more because they generate the calls and emails - I was pleased to get a place.
Firstly, some observations of my own. Often a story is perfectly clearly written but the headline lets it down. Or there's a throwaway brief para which contains an otherwise minor error but in context gives the wrong impression. I don't think that view is going to startle anyone.
What you *might* be less aware of is how wrongly people can apprehend, or remember, a story they've read in the newspapers - although if you think about it, not really that much of a surprise. Probably someone's done some research on this but I confess I am ignorant of it.
People have rung in wanting to know about something they read "last month in the papers", only for me to find that it was actually *months* ago, my record for the longest gap is three and a half years. Memories - not so reliable.
Even where the article is recent, and clear, I've found that some people just get the wrong end of the stick - they seem to misread the article or see something that isn't there. Clearly newspapers and journalists can't be blamed for everything.
Others have written very well on some of the minor and the more serious challenges facing science journalism, looking at 'internal' faults, 'systemic' faults (and the relationship between the two) and outside pressures.
The format was a series of presentations followed by being split into discussion groups - where I had an opportunity to mention these thoughts and hear from others.
Quite a lot of interesting info was generated in this discussion and I'm glad someone else was 'scribing' it for us. Then we returned to our seats, and it was in this interval that we discovered the cheese straws so the second half was slightly munchier than the first.
I'm not going to write about the individual presentations because (a) I think PiF are going to report on them anyway and (b) I've not written them up yet, but I might in future.
In summing up Mark Duman said he felt we'd all raised plenty of issues and problems, but not so much by way of solutions, but this is what he considered to be the key points for consideration and addressing.
1. Quality of press releases
This is where scientists and press offices can make sure that stories are not presented misleadingly at source, avoiding claiming more for the evidence than is warranted. For every example of dodgy reporting it seems there's an example of a dodgy press release.
2. Science training for journalists
This refers to money (possibly) being made available to train new journalists in how science works, following Fiona Fox's report (one of several reports arising from BIS's investigatiin of science and society). There's also the possibility of science training for current journalists but I think it was determined that this might be met with low enthusiasm - it's potentially a bit insulting but few who are on a busy news desk have the luxury of time to get involved with Continuing Professional Development.
3. Self-policing
The example was given of the PMCPA which monitors pharmaceutical companies' infractions of the ABPI code. This sets pharmaceutical company agsinst pharmaceutical company as they try to do each other over, for being a bit naughty in their advertising etc. Doctors can make complaints about pharma reps and advertising too. Ought papers to snitch on one another
when they spot mistakes? Do they do this? Seems a bit unworkable to me.
4. Develop a relationship - take them to lunch
This one is aimed at press folk in charities - make sure you're developing your working relationships with journalists; be available. Having never worked in a press office I've no idea what goes on so can't comment usefully here.
5. Assisting the public in critical appeaisal
This one is probably the most 'deficit model' of the lot, but I'd always thought the deficit model was more about the mistaken belief that if people know more about, or understand, science better then they will like and support it more. In the case of critical appraisal I can't help thinking that this would be a useful skill for more people and I wouldn't bleat too
much if this was implemented.
Suggestions included charities' websites having information on things to watch out for (I'm a fan of this and mentioned Cancer Research UK's ace science blog which does have a section on this) such as 'be wary when you see the word 'cure'. As a corollary there was also the suggestion that journalists might have a list of words to avoid, similar to the highly amusing list of words and phrases local government is not supposed to use when presenting info to the public, including wise avoidance of the phrase 'predictors of beaconicity'. I don't think forbidding words will help and I think 'cure' has a place in discussions on how a therapycould develop, but context is everything.
6. Encourage feedback
If you spot a good article, say so. If you see something less good, say so too. The first presentation, by a journalist, also raised this as being useful. If you're disappointed that an article gives too much weight to one side etc you may find that the journalist who wrote it is on your side and found themselves saying the same thing to their editor, who overruled them.
Your complaint might be a little ammunition against this in future.
7. Asking for links to primary sources - build a demand
There's already been some online discussion on the benefits of linking to primary sources, but it may not get very far if people don't keep up the support for this. It's good if people can check the story behind the story themselves, and if the story is very speculative and hasn't actually been published anywhere then this can be useful info (a 'primary source unavailable' sort of thing).
Living in Blackheath, and loathing the underground, I generally scarper sharpish once evening events finish so I didn't do much in the way of networking but it was nice to see old pals (@ayasawada) and meet new ones (Jen).
Saturday, 24 April 2010
Sidewiki in the service of skepticism
When I first heard of Google Sidewiki I was intrigued by the possibility of underhand comment sneakery, but also about how an organisation could find out if it had been Sidewikied (without actually having to download the Sidewiki toolbar themselves). I don't have an answer for that, but since I wrote my Posterous blog post "Thoughts on Google's Sidewiki" I've downloaded the toolbar and have been having some (mildy) mischievous fun ever since.
Rumour has it that Carter Ruck blocked some Sidewiki comments possibly relating to #Trafigura though I've no idea if this is true, or how they'd be able to do that but that post has some further information, and their website appears to be free of Sidewiki comments (although my Sidewiki button is 'active' meaning that they don't seem to have blocked the possibility of comments).
Mildly interestingly, Trafigura's homepage http://www.trafigura.com sometimes resolves to http://www.trafigura.com/#gLoozNOvbHDk which has zero Sidewiki comments and sometimes resolves to something with a different ending, that does have comments, eg http://www.trafigura.com/#e796zBz0BtTE - I'm not sure what to make of that.
I've not been commenting on the political stuff, just on sites of woo, and have kept my comments short and sweet in most cases (for some I've only added a link) so as to be super careful to prevent coming across as rude or worse.
But I have been commenting. And I've particularly enjoyed randomly coming across the secret sidewikis of other skeptic types, which prompted me to tweet that I thought of sidewiki as a little like geocaching a message, that may or may not be seen.
It's possible for people who've not downloaded the toolbar to see sidewikied comments if given an appropriate link, and apparently the comments show up in one's Google profile (I've not filled in enough information to warrant a profile but I'm not troubled by this and like the pretence of being 'under the radar').
Here's one I wrote earlier, about sugar pills and bad advice.
I've written a few more - mostly just posting a link to sense on a website where sense is currently absent - but I'm a little surprised that the skeptics haven't made more of the opportunity to add graffiti to another organisation's website than they have, although perhaps not everyone is as childish as me ;-) I'm imagining a 'Sidewiki map' created by a network of skeptics who map any instance of woo they come across, to a more skeptical page.
--- Edited for sense ;) ---
-------
Postscript: just before I copied and pasted this from notepad into Blogger I visited Twitter only to see that #Trafigura is back in the news again - I wonder if there will be any sidewiking going on too. When I started writing this blogpost I hadn't considered linking the Trafigura hashtag, but in light of latest news I have.
Rumour has it that Carter Ruck blocked some Sidewiki comments possibly relating to #Trafigura though I've no idea if this is true, or how they'd be able to do that but that post has some further information, and their website appears to be free of Sidewiki comments (although my Sidewiki button is 'active' meaning that they don't seem to have blocked the possibility of comments).
Mildly interestingly, Trafigura's homepage http://www.trafigura.com sometimes resolves to http://www.trafigura.com/#gLoozNOvbHDk which has zero Sidewiki comments and sometimes resolves to something with a different ending, that does have comments, eg http://www.trafigura.com/#e796zBz0BtTE - I'm not sure what to make of that.
I've not been commenting on the political stuff, just on sites of woo, and have kept my comments short and sweet in most cases (for some I've only added a link) so as to be super careful to prevent coming across as rude or worse.
But I have been commenting. And I've particularly enjoyed randomly coming across the secret sidewikis of other skeptic types, which prompted me to tweet that I thought of sidewiki as a little like geocaching a message, that may or may not be seen.
It's possible for people who've not downloaded the toolbar to see sidewikied comments if given an appropriate link, and apparently the comments show up in one's Google profile (I've not filled in enough information to warrant a profile but I'm not troubled by this and like the pretence of being 'under the radar').
Here's one I wrote earlier, about sugar pills and bad advice.
I've written a few more - mostly just posting a link to sense on a website where sense is currently absent - but I'm a little surprised that the skeptics haven't made more of the opportunity to add graffiti to another organisation's website than they have, although perhaps not everyone is as childish as me ;-) I'm imagining a 'Sidewiki map' created by a network of skeptics who map any instance of woo they come across, to a more skeptical page.
--- Edited for sense ;) ---
-------
Postscript: just before I copied and pasted this from notepad into Blogger I visited Twitter only to see that #Trafigura is back in the news again - I wonder if there will be any sidewiking going on too. When I started writing this blogpost I hadn't considered linking the Trafigura hashtag, but in light of latest news I have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
