A couple of things have happened over the last few days that have gotten me thinking about the science blogosphere (and the commentosphere too) and the quality of the discourse that happens there.

First off, in case you missed it, quite a kerfuffle (small understatement) erupted online in response to Nature’s news article last week about PLoS’s financial situation (that it isn’t breaking even and is using revenues from PLoS ONE to fund its other flagship journals).

Reading through some of the comments and blog posts about the article reminded me of a real-live discussion I sat in on at Scibarcamp back in March in Toronto. One senior, high-profile physicist at the event said how disillusioned he was with the science blogosphere. He said he’s been really turned off by the nastiness and divisiveness he’s seen. He said the science blogosphere has not fulfilled its promise of being a forum for serious scientific discussion. (Not to say that all blog posts and comments about the Nature article were mud-slinging; I saw some very good discussions. And not to say that all science bloggers engage in ranting. I’ve seen plenty of blogs that do engage in high-quality conversations but I’m sure many bloggers have stories to tell about the nastiness they’ve read or experienced online.)

Now, maybe it’s a generational thing. Those of us who didn’t ‘grow up’ with blogs might be more easily taken aback by what goes on in them. Those of us who did grow up with them perhaps have learned to take the bad with the good.

But still, I wonder how many other scientists out there would agree with this physicist? If there is a critical number of them out there agreeing with him, what does this mean for science blogging?

Then (on to the second thing), I saw this conversation on FriendFeed among researchers who did, shall we say, ‘grow up with the Internet.’ Even they were criticizing the quality of some of the comments on the blogs on Nature Network, saying that they are off-topic, silly, and “tiresome.”

The person whose blog was singled out for criticism was Jenny Rohn and she responded by saying that along with the not-so-serious comments on her blog came some constructive ones too. “I guess I never forget the “social” in social networking, and I don’t feel one has to be Serious and Earnest all the time,” she wrote.

So what do people feel is the right level of bantering/joking/silliness/criticism/insults/nastiness in the science blogo/commentosphere? Is there even a “right” level? Should there be? If there is a right level, are we at it now? If not, how can we get there? I have some opinions on this but I want to hear what other people have to say.

I hope we get to talk about this at our science blogging conference next month in London.