Talk:ScienceBlogs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] Controversy and blog listing

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

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)

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


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)


--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 Pharyngula (blog), and the fact that notability generally does transfer upwards. In this case, I think it would likely be permissible to use references from ScienceBlogs and they're opponents in the controversies, as long as we keep it encyclopedic and 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)

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

[edit] Description

ScienceBlogs is currently described as a "blog website". Could it perhaps be more accurate to call it a virtual community, or a blog hosting provider? Fatalistalk 09:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Science Community perhaps? I think there are plans to expand beyond just blogs maybe?Omnibraintalk 14:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


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

[edit] Sb in the Media

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

  • Blogwatch, (Nick Anthis uncovers NASA scandal on his blog) in Time, 2/12/06
  • 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)
  • Tara featured in Microblogology video on Microbeworld.org, undated [1]
  • ScienceBlogs Network Reviewed, in Blogcritics Magazine, Jan-Feb 2007
Part 1, the A's
Part 2, the C's
Part 3, the D's
  • ScienceBlogs reviewed on Trinifar Blog, 4/11/07
Part 1
Part 2


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

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)
Formatted list so we can comb through it more easily. -- MarcoTolo 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Added a few more 72.68.187.12 14:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Ginny
Couple more RosyGlow19 17:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Ginny
Another RosyGlow19 10:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Ginny