Below you will find links to the top 20 "Science Blogs" listed by Wikio. Some time ago, Wikio asked me to help them with making sure that this list maintained a certain degree of integrity, avoiding creationist or denialist blogs for instance. This process ... vetting blogs ... is something that is philosophically difficult, but in my view pragmatically not very hard at all. The following list is un-vetted. It is the list Wikio came up with using whatever techniques they use (Visit their site to find out more). I would like you to look at this list and tell me (in the comments or by email) what you think of it. This is a list of science sites. Are there sites that should not be on this list because they are not really science blogs?
All opinions welcome. Try to be civil. But if you can't manage that it's OK. I'll summarize the results and forward them to Wikio. I have no direct say in what happens, I'm merely an advisor.
Physical Science
Life Science
Comments
Watts Up With That? is a climate denialist blog. Interesting that is showed up just ahead of Climate Progress and RealClimate.
Posted by: Radar Jer | February 3, 2010 10:39 AM
What, no Pharyngula? Isn't Pharyngula the top science blog on the net?
Posted by: pradeep | February 3, 2010 10:42 AM
Climate Audit and Watts up with that are both denialist blogs. That said, I read them occasionally to see what the denialists latest arguments are. The only time I commented on Climate Audit, my relatively short comment was redacted by Steve McEntyre, who runs the site, to something along the lines of "You are right... climate change is... not real..." which pissed me off and clued me in that there isn't a whole lot of academic integrity going on there.
Posted by: zensunni | February 3, 2010 11:19 AM
Watts up... isn't a science blog. I wouldn't call Climate Progress a science blog either.
Posted by: jr | February 3, 2010 11:35 AM
Pharyngula must be in a class by itself.
When I attended Penn State many (many) years ago, some magazine listed top ten party schools. The list did not include Penn State or Ohio State. The reasoning went that they were in a class so far above the other schools, it wasn't fair to rank them. I do remember being able to pick up a keg of beer without getting out of my car - a drive through distributor. Not just one either, there were three. $36 for a half of Blatz IIRC. Cups thrown in and a deposit for the hardware. I need to go pee just thinking about it.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 3, 2010 11:52 AM
I concur with the previous comments.
IMHO, If Watts Up With That? and Climate Audit are science blogs then the Wall Street Journal is a science journal.
Posted by: Paul Hutch | February 3, 2010 11:54 AM
By not including Pharyngula, the whole process becomes highly suspect.
Posted by: tms | February 3, 2010 12:02 PM
I read about three-fourths of these at least semi-regularly, including Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, neither of which I would consider remotely science blogs. (Watts Up With That I would call an anti-science blog, if there is such a thing. Its author seems to be proud of his ignorance of fundamentals.)
I'm really glad to see Bad Astronomy, Respectful Insolence, Deltoid, and your blog on the list. Also in my opinion Brian Switek's blog Laelaps ought to be on it.
Posted by: sbh | February 3, 2010 12:23 PM
tms, your statement smacks of paranoia. I think we need to be out to get you now.
The Wikio list only includes blogs that have a wikio wiget thingie on them. Similarly, technorati only counts blogs that declare themselves with some embedded code. Google as wall for certain things.
I assume PZ leaves himself off these lists for various reasons.
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 3, 2010 12:54 PM
I'm not sure I would call Dispatches from the Culture Wars a science blog, since it seems to be much more about politics, law, and unintentional comedy. But, to each his own, I guess.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 3, 2010 2:59 PM
Shawn,
I think the comedy is often quite intentional over at Dispatches. Maybe Ed has to spawn a few science related dispatches per month to keep his standing there.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 3, 2010 3:49 PM
MikeMa,
I was refering to the subjects (usually Robert(?) O'Brian trophy winners or Dumbass Quote of the Day speakers) that Ed posts about. I didn't write my thoughts very well, though. And I do agree with you that the posts themselves generally don't have unintentional comedy. The main science posts I see are the evil-cretin debates, but my impression is that they're a small proportion of his posts.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 3, 2010 6:06 PM
Dispatches counts as a scienceblog. The blog covers imporant issues in the social sciences, it covers the evo-creo debate, and it has "scienceblogs" in the URL.
Having said that, I'm not entirely sure ED lists himself on Wikio. He certainly does not need the traffic. But yes, to each his own.
In my view there is a distinct difference between a blog that covers some aspect of science, careers, education, politics, etc. and a blog that is operationally anti-science like a denialist blog.
So far it is looking like two of the blogs on this list are candidates to recommend that they be considered for non-inclusion, if Wikio wants to do that. I assume that if the two fake science blogs were removed that some of the blogs mentioned above would have a chance of moving into the top 20.
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 3, 2010 6:10 PM
I'd agree that WUWT and CA are anti-science blogs. Dropping posts and comments down the memory hole isn't good. How they respond to comments and the way they do the 'this analysis could make a difference' dance without doing the analysis and demonstrating that it does (or almost invariably doesn't) make a difference means they aren't engaged in the science conversation. Science is a conversation and blogs should reflect that.
Posted by: stewart | February 3, 2010 6:39 PM
Ditto on Watts Up and Climate Audit - three non-scientists attacking science using lies and slander, frankly.
Wired Science, by the way, has a famously libertarian slant on its science news (it's more a tech site like the Register in the UK than a science site) and it does present denialist arguments sympathetically, but it's still respectable as a popular science site. It might be good to point that out if someone thinks your commenters are just big governmentniks who are part of teh enormous Sci-Con.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | February 3, 2010 6:43 PM
With the exceptions of Laelaps, Pharyngula and the Intersection, this is almost the Eureka list:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/02/03/the-intersection-and-friends-on-eurekas-top-30-blogs/
Posted by: Marion Delgado | February 3, 2010 6:47 PM
What am I, chopped liver? That eureka list is deeply flawed.
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 3, 2010 6:51 PM
Greg Laden, thanks for reminding me about social science. That, more than anything, is enough to convince me that Dispatches has a place on that list.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 3, 2010 8:37 PM
Greg, if you're vetting the list for Wikio, ferdogssake vet your fine blog onto it! It's not nepotism if you simply help yourself.
Posted by: HalfMooner | February 4, 2010 2:38 AM
Halfmooner: I am on this list! I'm not on that other, stupid, list mentioned in a comment upstream.
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 4, 2010 7:16 AM