Comments on: The Discovery Institute is Beating Up Larry Moran

By: B8ovin

B8ovin — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:09:49 +0000

Really? That many comments about linking? And it’s not really about linking or not linking it’s about stating you’re linking or not. If you just don’t link there is no true moral statement. So the arguments are based on saying you’re NOT linking. And what does it really matter? If you can do the work on your own in a moment’s time why should you care? On the other hand, there is a certain amount of intellectual credibility in linking to sites with different (if not completely intellectual bankrupt) views.And now, dammit, I’ve hypocritically added to the number of linking-related comments I condemn. My feeling is this is Greg’s blog and he can do whatever the hell he feels like doing, and this is not an issue that requires a great deal of hand-wringing.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:54:12 +0000

Right on, Dan!

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:37:14 +0000

I know it is wrong to not link. But think of it as a form of civil disobedience.No! Greg – don’t take back your earlier comment, it was so spot-on. You said:I am not hiding from you what you need to know… let’s just say that I have indicated where this blog post is (the DI web site) and who wrote it (M. Egnore). That’s all you get.Indeed, you weren’t hiding anything, and you aren’t obligated to do Egnor or the DI the courtesy of linking to them. Anyone with half a brain can fine the article that you’re referring to without the use of a hyperlink.

By: Elf Eye

Elf Eye — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:25:35 +0000

In my course on research methods, when my students evaluate a website, one of the things they look for is whether or not the site offers links to relevant sites even when those sites do not support the position of the originating site. In a discussion of the behavior of the Discovery Institute, it would seem that the Discovery Institute itself is a relevant site. So I would agree with those who suggest linking.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:22:18 +0000

I know it is wrong to not link. But think of it as a form of civil disobedience. Or perhaps Blogal Disobedience.

By: Hank

Hank — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:02:49 +0000

Linking the DI website is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get.

By: RBH

RBH — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:35:39 +0000

The Discovery Institute is Beating Up Larry Moran

might better be phrased as “Disco Dancers nip at Larry Moran’s ankles.”

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:33:14 +0000

Tiny URL is a good idea, worth considering, but my main concern is not the value of the link to the site, but rather, the little piece of my own integrity that goes away when I point someone towards a site like this.I am not hiding from you what you need to know. If I write a paper and refer to a paper therein, am I then expected to wait around for you to request the paper and then go to the library and get it for you? Don’t hold your breath!I understand that the internet is different, but in this case, let’s just say that I have indicated where this blog post is (the DI web site) and who wrote it (M. Egnore). That’s all you get.I don’t like not linking, and I agree with the sentiment many of you are expressing. I have chosen to feel less smarmy by not linking to them. The DI is a fake evolution site. I have a real problem linking to a fake evolution site. That might be petty, but actually doing, linking to them, is worse.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:36:48 +0000

At minimum, if you are going to do this you should attach a longer explanation about their history of modifying statements and throwing things into the memory hole, with links to some of the more blatant examples.

Ahem - helloo? Greg already did this.Whether it's petty or not, I tend to discount the arguments of anyone citing the Discovery Institute (or ARN, AiG, etc.) as being functionally illiterate when it comes to science, and I tell them so. That's not petty - it's just honest.

By: Joshua Zelinsky

Joshua Zelinsky — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:06:18 +0000

I’m growing deeply concerned about this refusal to link. Generally, this is a sign of people being on the wrong side of things. For example, many young earth creationists bash TOA and don’t link to it. In contrast TOA does link to them. Similarly with scientology, the anti-scientologists seem to be generally more willing to link.I understand the concerns about google ranking and the concern that the DI and UD will modify or remove pages. The solution to this is to a) always download a copy of the page if you are going to reference it and b) as Orac said use a tinyurl or a nofollow tag if you don’t like the google bounce. What is worse if the DI takes something down, people who are googling for it and can’t find it won’t realize necessarily that it got taken down, while a direct that no longer works more likely alert them to what happened.At minimum, if you are going to do this you should attach a longer explanation about their history of modifying statements and throwing things into the memory hole, with links to some of the more blatant examples. But overall, it makes much more sense to just take the highground and link.