So it seems that ScienceBlogs has a wikipedia entry, but there's not much there, and of course it's a little dodgy for Sciencebloggers themselves to write the entry. If anyone wants to improve on it, please do. Katherine Sharpe, our blogmistress (she's the one with the whip, but it's a nice whip), has dumped some basic information on the discussion page, so it ought to be fairly easy for someone to check the info and clean it up.
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
No doubt some of your cousins and great-uncles died in childhood, but not a single one of your ancestors did. Ancestors just don't die young!
Richard Dawkins
Recent Posts
- The Midwest Science of Origins Conference!
- Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- Mary's Monday Metazoan: Ambition!
- Our illness is their profit
- Friday Cephalopod: NUMBERLESS HOSTS!
- Dear Jezebel
- There Will Be Blood?
- Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Friday Cephalopod: Feasibility trial successful
- Making excuses
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- Owlmirror on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- themayan on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- themayan on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Stanton on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Nerd of Redhead, OM on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Stanton on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Owlmirror on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- themayan on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Stanton on More bad science in the literature
- Stanton on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« Nature and The Simpsons | Main | A New Human »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
A mission for Wikipedians
Category: Weblogs
Posted on: July 26, 2007 12:04 PM, by PZ Myers
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/46572
Leave a comment
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Comments
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | July 26, 2007 12:13 PM
For the person who will update it, you might want to include some interesting demographics of Scienceblogs from Quantcast. Very interesting in terms of education level and other user-centered data.
Posted by: Jon Eccles | July 26, 2007 12:54 PM
I'm in the habit of correcting spelling and grammar mistakes on Wikipedia, as a useful contribution I can make. I went to the Science Blogs entry all keen as mustard to do my bit, but couldn't find any. Damn you literate science types.
Posted by: Tom | July 26, 2007 1:13 PM
There's nothing wrong with Sciencebloggers updating the Wikipedia page, as long as it's not something like "omg scienceblogs SO COOL!" Who would know the site better than its contributors?
Posted by: Sebastian | July 26, 2007 2:34 PM
I was about to say what Tom remarked. After all, there is nothing dodgy about biologists writing about biology, so why shouldn't contributors to the Scienceblogs site share their experience?
Of course, there's a certain line beyond which information sharing turns into self-promotion, and objectivity is hard to maintain, but I can't see that applying here. For example PZ shouldn't edit his own Wikipedia entry - except, perhaps, for purely factual, verifiable things such as a birth date or place of residence, etc. - whereas he could surely contribute to an entry on Morris, Minnesota, if one such exists, without having to recuse himself for conflict of interest.
Posted by: Jon H | July 26, 2007 2:39 PM
Can I write that the founders of ScienceBlogs met during the Bataan Death March?
Posted by: Brian | July 26, 2007 5:18 PM
I wandered over to Quantcast & looked at the stats for ScienceBlogs. Under "Audience Keywords," right between "amy winehouse" and "tv listings," I found that topic that keeps me coming back to ScienceBlogs all the time: "blowjobs."
Posted by: Infophile | July 27, 2007 10:36 AM
While there's nothing that seems obviously wrong with editing purely factual information on yourself, Wikipedians do tend to get into a big stink about it. The problem is basically that it's impossible to expect someone to write neutrally about themselves or something they have an affiliation with. While these editors may but in true, positive information, they likely won't put in true, negative information, and this can easily lead to a biased article. Purely factual information is usually accepted, though even this can be suspect on occasion (let's say Ann Coulter edits her date of birth, for instance).
While we could debate the merits of this rule all day, in the end, we just have to accept that it's the rule Wikipedia goes by. Ignoring it simply because you don't agree with it is just going to lead to trouble.
However, I don't think you really have anything to worry about with getting the article looking good. In cases like this, it's general fans or interested Wikipedians who will come along and fix up the article. Of course, fans also have a potential neutrality problem, but it doesn't amount to a Conflict of Interest...
Bleh. COI stuff can get really overblown sometimes. On the other hand, it's not all bad. For instance, it recently kept Dean Radin from turning his article into a self-promotion piece.
Posted by: grendelkhan | July 28, 2007 11:41 AM
The conflict of interest policy doesn't prevent science bloggers from editing the article. However, it does prevent people from using themselves as sources; that ends up running into problems with verifiability. There's no reason verifiable facts can't be added to the article by people in the best place to know them. However, unverifiable facts can't be added to the article, even if you know them.
Also, if someone wants to write some posts about the history of scienceblogs and whatnot and post them to their blogs, those can (generally speaking, and with some qualifications) be used as sources in the article, so if you want to improve it, that's a great way.