Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Politics and 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Frogbeater writes "The producer of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is accusing the National Science Teachers Association of being in the pocket of Big Oil because she can't get preferential treatment for her film. The entire situation is turning into a 'if you're not with us, you're against us' yelling match. Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science can remain apolitical? Has it ever been?" The Washington Post makes things out to be less than above board: "In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school ... NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called 'Running on Oil' and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called 'You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel,' a shameless pitch for oil dependence." [Slashdot] 6:20:22 PM      Google It!.

YouTube Coming Soon to Cellphones. YouTube[base ']s phone-based version will require a $15-a-month subscription to a Verizon Wireless service called VCast. By MATT RICHTEL. [NYT > Technology] - the upshot of this is that cellphones become a more viable platform for educational content for students on the move - and more convenient for the anytime anywhere bits of online education.  With speech enabled navigation this video on demand could be very effective for just-in-time content.  The real synergy will come with dual mode phones that can use wifi hotspots for web applications from googleplex. -- BL 6:13:57 PM      Google It!.

Experts Rate Wikipedia Higher Than Non-Experts. Grooves writes "A new Wikipedia study suggests that when experts and non-experts look to assess Wikipedia for accuracy, the non-experts are harder on the free encyclopedia than the experts. The researcher had 55 graduate students and research assistants examine one Wikipedia article apiece for accuracy, some in fields they were familiar with and some not. Those in the expert group ranked their articles as generally credible, higher than those evaluated by the non-experts. One researcher said 'It may be the case that non-experts are more cynical about information outside of their field and the difference comes from a natural reaction to rate unfamiliar articles as being less credible.'" That's the problem people face when 'everyone who disagrees with you is a moron'.[Slashdot] 6:01:03 PM      Google It!.