Talk:ScienceBlogs

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Helloooo Talk page!

There a number of things the entry still needs. For example a controversy section. ScienceBlogs has generated a lot of controversy among religious groups, holocaust denialists, scientologists (anti-psychiatry), anti-vacc. people. It might be a great section to highlight some of the groups Sb has pissed off and what posts did it.

There might also be a use of a more complete listing of the blogs.

Any other ideas? Omnibrain 14:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Omnibrain[reply]

A full list of blogs probably isn't appropriate, but a short list of the most popular blogs (5-10 probably) would probably be alright. As for a controversy section, that should definitely go in; we just need sourcing by some third party reporting on it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 5ish most popular blogs since the beginning of 2006 so that should take care of a decent list. As for a third party reporting... hmm...I can't think of any besides the actual primary sources of the controversy (Discovery Institute, etc.)Omnibrain 09:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Omnibrain[reply]

As I mentioned before, a complete listing of blogs likely has no place in this article. We should keep it to only a mention of the most notable blogs (as it currently is is pretty good). However, a link to a listing of blogs is quite appropriate. The problem is that I can't find one, outside of the sidebar on the main page. Is there one I'm just missing? We might also be able to get away with listing out the blogs it had when it was first launched.

What this article should include is more along the lines of the history of its formation, any notable mentions in the press, and any other interesting stories about it. Information specific to one blog should be kept to that blog's entry (if it exists), while this article should stick to overarching stories. I'll search around and see if there are any mentions of it in the press. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I've removed the blog list. I'll take it somewhere else to edit and polish before trying to find a place for it on the Sb site.

Okay, unfortunately it's looking like there's little mention of it in the press. This isn't really that surprising though, as the mainstream press is notably reluctant to report on anything to do with blogging except in the most general terms. Normally this might mean the article shouldn't exist at all, but there's been some precedent when it comes to blogs which implies the other way (basically, the continued uncosted existence of

NPOV

.

As for the blog listing, I'd recommend creating a page in your user space for it while you're working on it. For instance, you could put it at User:Kgs1979/SB Blog Listing (click on the link and it'll let you create that page). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey what about a list of 5 or 10 all-time most popular blog posts? not by traffic, because that is proprietary, but perhaps those that were digg-ed, fark-ed, etc. RosyGlow19 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Ginny[reply]

ScienceBlogs is currently described as a "blog website". Could it perhaps be more accurate to call it a

Virtual Science Community perhaps? I think there are plans to expand beyond just blogs maybe?Omnibrain^talk 14:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always referred to it as a "blog network." -Katherine

The following are links to media/blog mentions of the ScienceBlogs network or individual ScienceBloggers, in chronological order.

• The Blogosphere as a Carnival of Ideas, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/7/05

• Review of Pharyngula, in The Weblog Review, date unknown
• Science Blogs as a Vehicle for Upscale Ads, in The New York Times, 1/20/06

• Serbian Immigrant Ponders Links Between Politics and Science, in Medscape, 2/1/06

• Tara Smith interviewed by Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, 2/1/06

• A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA, (Nick Anthis uncovers NASA scandal on his blog) in The New York Times, 2/8/06

• A PR Scandal Rocks NASA, (Nick Anthis uncovers NASA scandal on his blog) in The Houston Chronicle, 2/8/06

• Blogwatch, (Nick Anthis uncovers NASA scandal on his blog) in Time, 2/12/06

• Pass the Politics, Please: Science Blogs Peppered with Commentary, in the Online Journalism Review, 4/13/06

• Aetiology: A Blog in Search of Intelligent Science, in Medscape, 5/3/06

• Top Five Science Blogs, in Nature (online), 7/5/06 - subscription only (They also list top 50; Sb'ers account for 26/50; and soon to be 27/50)

• Who Benefits from Science Blogging?, in Hypothesis, Sept. 2006

• Seed and ScienceBlogs Receive Awards for Science Journalism, PR Newswire, 12/22/06

• Bloglife: Uncertain Principles, in PhysicsWeb, January 2007

• Tara featured in Microblogology video on Microbeworld.org, undated [1]

• Can Blogs Make Science Cool?, in NPR Marketplace, 1/19/07

• ScienceBlogs Network Reviewed, in Blogcritics Magazine, Jan-Feb 2007

Part 1, the A's

Part 2, the C's

Part 3, the D's

• Discovery Finds Its Way a Click at a Time: Bloggers Work to Make Science Sexy, in The News & Observer, 1/21/07 (also picked up by Houston Chronicle)

• Science Blogger Bora Zivkovic, in Nature (online), 1/22/07

• Science Bloggers Avoid the Spinach Dip Brush-Off, in Inkling, 1/24/07

• Sharing Science in Virtual World, in The Baltimore Sun, 2/1/07

• Scientists Must Improve Communication Tactics, Science Article Proclaims, in Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, 4/5/07

• Framing Science, by Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet, in Science, 4/6/07

• ScienceBlogs reviewed on Trinifar Blog, 4/11/07

Part 1

Part 2

• Storm in a Teacup or Dark Conspiracy? (The Shelley open-access controversy), in NatureNetworks blog, 4/26/07

• For Blogger: A Threat, Then an Apology, in The Scientist, 5/2/07

• Scientists Enter the Blogosphere, in Cell, 5/4/07

• Bloggers Unite (review of The Open Laboratory), in Nature, 6/14/07

• Orac interviewed by Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, 6/20/07

• Defending Science in the Face of Controversy, in Medscape, 7/10/07

• Saving American Science, in Time Magazine's (Michael Lemonick's) Eye on Science blog, 7/11/07

• You Are Not Good Enough (about Rob Knop), in The Chronicle of Higher Education, 7/16/07

• Quit Academe and You, Too, Could Win a Major Award (about Rob Knop), in The Chronicle of Higher Education, 7/25/07

• Rob Knop featured in News in Brief, in Nature, 7/26/07

• Nick Anthis mentioned, in the LA Times, 8/22/07

RosyGlow19 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Ginny[reply]

Ah, thank you very much. This should alleviate a lot of the concerns I had above. It'll take some work to look through all of that and decide what's important, but I'll try to get at it as I have time. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted list so we can comb through it more easily. -- MarcoTolo 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more 72.68.187.12 14:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Ginny[reply]

Couple more RosyGlow19 17:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Ginny[reply]

Another RosyGlow19 10:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Ginny[reply]

I was trying to find out which were the original blogs hosted in SB and the dates that other blogs joined. So how about list, in chronological order, of all the blogs in SB with their respective join date? I'll see what info I can find. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too involved to edit this page, but this page is rather out of date. Anyone wanna volunteer to update things?PalMD (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the knowledge, there's nothing wrong with your adding non-controversial stuff like how many and when added & statistics. IMO! No reason someone else should have to research such items, if you have them already. - Hordaland (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Pepsi needs mention in this article. The scandal belongs, but not the name of the corporation. As Bora Zivkovic points out in his long farewell article, the crux of the matter is not which huge corp bought its way onto ScienceBlogs, but that Seed Media Group sold out. When you've sold your reputation you don't have one anymore, as a commenter at the Guardian put it. - Hordaland (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? It is a matter of record that the company in question was Pepsi. Of course it needs mentions. Reading the sentence you have anyone is going to immediately wonder what company they are talking about. Can you explain a policy basis that we would leave this information out of the article? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi is mentioned in the references. I mean just the refs one sees there, without clicking on them. Pepsi isn't the culprit here, Seed Media Group is. Pepsi's just doing what corporations do. As I understand it, Pepsi bought space on ScienceBlogs but couldn't immediately find anyone to participate in the blog. Seed messed up.

Newspapers mention Pepsi by name. It's new & breaking news. Encyclopedias, IMO, should be more sober. It's almost like a BLP issue. That's how I am looking at it anyway. - Hordaland (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporations are not BLPs. Frankly, this borders on whitewashing. And if a human had been involved as a specific individual int a situation similar to this, I don't think there'd be a BLP issue. To use an obvious sort of example, when Obama is incidentally mentioned in our articles about the Blagojevich scandals, that's not a BLP problem, just finishing out the narrative. Even if you thought that that would be a BLP problem, this isn't a BLP. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The see also links seem completely irrelevant to the article at hand and should be removed - yes/no? Voomoo (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070710164443/http://scienceblogs.com:80/channel/about.php to http://scienceblogs.com/channel/about.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

2606:6000:FECD:1400:35F0:4906:153C:2132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]