So I noticed today that ScienceBlogs does not have a wikipedia entry! What's up with that? Ridiculous!
I felt it to be my solemn duty to start one for the world! But clearly I'm not really supposed to be creating it since I guess I sorta, kinda 'work' for Seed Media. But anyway! Please head over there and help fill it up with some exciting content! Your favorite stories, information about all the great blogs, how you met the love of your life there, etc.
I also wouldn't object if someone created an Omni Brain entry ;) (I would feel a little worse actually creating that one myself).
Here's the exciting link!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienceblogs
- Log in to post comments
You're not supposed to contribute when you see a gap that needs filling! You're supposed to a) complain loudly and bitterly that the gap has not magically filled by itself, and b) tell everyone this proves Wikipedia sucks and is evil.
Well, in this case it's actually Wikipedia policy that you're not supposed to create entries about yourself or anyone you're affiliated with, in order to maintain NPOV and prevent "press release" entries. Not that the latter don't exist anyway, but somebody out there needs to at least pretend to play by the rules.
Eh, I'll let your conflict of interest violation here slide. ScienceBlogs does indeed deserve an entry; particularly since it has at least one contained blog with its own article (I will neither confirm nor deny that I am responsible for said article).
However, what would be preferable to keep it up is some evidence of notability. To do this, find some major newspaper or other news outlet which has mentioned it, and post a link on the talk page to prove it's notable. This should stave off some claims that this article is only for self-promotion.
Also, I'd recommend reading through all the Conflict of Interest guidelines if you haven't already. To be honest, COI stuff can get very messy very quickly. The article looks passable now, and if you don't want to get in trouble, I'd recommend just making a note to prove it's notable and worthy of staying, then letting others step in to improve it. Free time permitting, I might just do this myself.
But how accurate is the information that Wikipedia supplies? A set of nerds who think that they know everything but where there is no authoritative reference. i.e to a qualified and highly experienced/respected authority (with 50 years on his or her back at least) et al leaves the information totally open to abuse. This is the greatest danger for the world-at-large, accepting what Wikipedia says without question and where if history is rewritten, future generations will just not know right from wrong. A terrible state of affairs for all future generations to come. The same thing will probably equate to the equivalent of Google. I would steer completely away, for the ramification for the future generations are grave to say the very least.
Dr. David Hill Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland Registration no.CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005, in the Canton of Bern www.thewif.org.uk